Oh that scheming Al Gore and the IPCC. Teg, you post like HUR.

I still don't see why another brief cooling trend, the likes of which have been seen many times throughout the past 100 years, indicates a change in the long term trend.

And I don't know why you're rolling your eyes at the cat article. Warmer temperatures do affect animal populations. Have you heard of the Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic?

4/29/2009 10:20:02 AM

Quote :

"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."

We've got about 150 years of anything close to reliable thermometer data. Beyond that, we're relying on inferring temperatures from other sources, like tree rings, ice cores, boreholes, and the like. What time scale would you propose we look on?

Quote :

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

I should clarify in saying, sustained rate of change. As in, for more than a decade.

Quote :

"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."

Their R^2 data only goes up to 1970 - and yet where we see the marked departure is between 1970 and 2000 (i.e., the last four points). (Check the caption - "Sunspot cycle length versus smoothed global mean temperatures from 1850 to 1970 and compared with CO2 concentration"). I don't have time for a moment to dig up the other rebuttals of this claim (I will try to do so later), but I genuinely suspect some of what we're seeing here is data artifacts. Given that we already see the mishandled graph that see as well, I'm a little skeptical, suffice it to say.

Anyhow, have a look at this paper again:

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf

They seem to talk about a lot of what's going on with the solar cycle analysis (particularly on page 2).

[Edited on April 29, 2009 at 10:23 AM. Reason : Dates]

4/29/2009 10:20:26 AM

Quote :

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

Well, I think its because they realize that global warming might not be as sure of a thing as they were saying and are now restating it as "climate change" because if there's one thing for sure - the climate will always change. Now, no matter what happens, they're right. Its called a tautology.

4/29/2009 10:42:11 AM

Quote :

"I still don't see why another brief cooling trend, the likes of which have been seen many times throughout the past 100 years, indicates a change in the long term trend. And I don't know why you're rolling your eyes at the cat article. Warmer temperatures do affect animal populations. Have you heard of the Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic?"

I roll my eyes b/c the climate changing is N-A-T-U-R-A-L and some people try to take almost anything they can and link it to AGW to get in the headlines.

4/29/2009 11:03:24 AM

Quote :

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

Use your big boy brain and its pretty obvious. The reason is that global weather and climate is very complex with MANY degrees of freedom to which a change in one of the variables can have an effect on climate. Even if the average global temerperature did claim for the world as a whole does this not mean every part of the planet will have a net increase in annual temperature. Due to the effect potential glacial melting may have on ocean currents some places like Western Europe may actually "cool". Other places may either get wetter or drier without really seeing any change in average annual temperatuer or a locale may see more extreme changes in the seasons.

I think originally the term global warming was used b.c it was simpler than "global variation with total global temperature increase but variable shifting climate patterns for different regions"

Quote :

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

I actually agree; i do not think the evidence is there to even assert that even "natural" global climate cycling has been causing the surge in natural disasters.

4/29/2009 11:09:57 AM

Quote :

"I think its because they realize that global warming might not be as sure of a thing as they were saying and are now restating it as "climate change" because if there's one thing for sure - the climate will always change"

so..

that just means they are doing their jobs and were able to question the initial results. Still does not eliminate artificial CO2 creation as a factor in climate change but nobody but the extreme liberals and environmentalists are pushing for all the crazy radical changes to alter CO2 emissions. this does not mean that we shouldn't be slowly be implementing last impactful processes as they become technological and financially feasible. While at the same time continuing our research into the understanding of human impact on climate change.

4/29/2009 11:35:29 AM

One of the few things you've posted recently that I soundly agree with.

4/29/2009 11:55:51 AM

Quote :

"so.. that just means they are doing their jobs and were able to question the initial results. Still does not eliminate artificial CO2 creation as a factor in climate change"

Actually, it means that they are trying to cover their asses, because they still haven't questioned their foregone conclusion that manmade CO2 is to blame for "climate change".... Well, if you don't even know which direction the climate is changing, how the F can you begin to figure out its causes?

This is elementary.

[Edited on April 29, 2009 at 12:56 PM. Reason : s]

4/29/2009 12:51:30 PM

Quote :

"this does not mean that we shouldn't be slowly be implementing last impactful processes as they become technological and financially feasible. While at the same time continuing our research into the understanding of human impact on climate change."

I think we all agree with this. (I hope).

4/29/2009 1:09:00 PM

I didn't mean to imply that I think weather disasters are tied to global warming. I don't think there's any way to prove that.

Quote :

"I roll my eyes b/c the climate changing is N-A-T-U-R-A-L and some people try to take almost anything they can and link it to AGW to get in the headlines."

I don't see anything in the article about GW being artificial. Its about killing kitties. Which is sad, not "comic relief".

Anyways, you guys are confusing me. Are you trying to say global warming is natural or that it isnt happening?

4/29/2009 1:09:10 PM

Quote :

"Actually, it means that they are trying to cover their asses, because they still haven't questioned their foregone conclusion that manmade CO2 is to blame for "climate change".... Well, if you don't even know which direction the climate is changing, how the F can you begin to figure out its causes? "

I assume you are not a science major or do nothing in terms of science or engineering your field of work.

I am sure Al Gore did not step outside today and was like "Golly Gee its pretty hot today. Maybe I can help my stock in solar panels go up by trying to trick people into think that our CO2 emissions are making these random hotter than the average days"

4/29/2009 1:14:10 PM

Quote :

"I am sure Al Gore did not step outside today and was like "Golly Gee its pretty hot today. Maybe I can help my stock in solar panels go up by trying to trick people into think that our CO2 emissions are making these random hotter than the average days""

Did he? Maybe, maybe not. Blind trust of public figures is not my modus operandi. I prefer to rely on the scientific method: Hypothesis->Experiment->Conclusion.

4/29/2009 2:10:39 PM

Quote :

"I didn't mean to imply that I think weather disasters are tied to global warming. I don't think there's any way to prove that"

If that's the way you feel then I apologize. And you are proving a point in saying there's no way to prove that they're tired together. The point being 95% of the things being blamed for AGW have little, if any, solid scientific evidence to back them up.

4/29/2009 11:16:59 PM

Quote :

"We've got about 150 years of anything close to reliable thermometer data."

And the "reliability" really aint all that much...

Quote :

"I still don't see why another brief cooling trend, the likes of which have been seen many times throughout the past 100 years, indicates a change in the long term trend."

Funny. you'll discount a cooling trend as natural because you've seen it before, but you won't discount warming as natural, even when it's been seen before. In the past 200 years.

Quote :

"I should clarify in saying, sustained rate of change. As in, for more than a decade."

And clearly you didn't read Red Flag 9, then. It shows this change occurring on a multi-decadal time-scale.

Quote :

"Their R^2 data only goes up to 1970"

I see 1900 and 1880. What are you looking at. BTW, I only mentioned the sketchy graph in the interest of "full disclosure." If you are going to dismiss their arguments based on that, then you should also dismiss anything the IPCC might say, as they have based a lot of their arguments on scientific fraud as well. Likewise, should I also be suspicious of your paper, as it, too, shows Mann's fraud?

BTW, I'm not really sure how that paper can adequately explain away studies that were done after it was written.


Holy shit, is HUR actually discussing the topic? WTF?

Quote :

"Even if the average global temerperature did claim for the world as a whole does this not mean every part of the planet will have a net increase in annual temperature."

This is true, but when the claim is that CO2 is trapping heat, then it'd be nice to actually see an overall increase in temperature.

Quote :

"that just means they are doing their jobs and were able to question the initial results."

Right. Like questioning fraudulent studies and the like, and providing their data and computer programs to any interested parties... oh wait!

Quote :

"I assume you are not a science major or do nothing in terms of science or engineering your field of work. "

Tell us what you do, btw.

Quote :

"If that's the way you feel then I apologize."

Don't back out now, man. Lumex totally made the claim that natural disasters were occurring more frequently with the obvious implication that they were caused by AGW. It was clear that that is what he meant. And he got fucking owned on that matter.

4/30/2009 8:26:22 AM

global climate destabilization

4/30/2009 8:44:07 AM

didn't we just vote for change?

4/30/2009 8:49:19 AM

I JUST CHECKED GOOGLE EARTH AND THE POLAR ICECAPS ARE GONE

4/30/2009 10:17:05 AM

^^^^ I was speculating on the reasoning of vocal environmentalists, many of whom are complete hacks. You shouldnt assume I agree with said environmentalists. The only thing being owned here is you by your ever-presumptuous nature.

Quote :

"Funny. you'll discount a cooling trend as natural because you've seen it before, but you won't discount warming as natural, even when it's been seen before. In the past 200 years."

You missed the point again. By itself, another brief cooling period does not indicate a change in the long term warming trend full of brief cooling periods. Whether warming is artificial or natural, what you're claiming still does not make sense.



[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 10:48 AM. Reason : nother ^]

4/30/2009 10:48:01 AM

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

Quote :

"The Internet is full of references to global warming. The Union of Concerned Scientists website on climate change is titled "Global Warming," just one of many examples. But we don't use global warming much on this website. We use the less appealing "climate change." Why? To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases. Its first use was in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"1 Broecker's term was a break with tradition. Earlier studies of human impact on climate had called it "inadvertent climate modification."2 This was because while many scientists accepted that human activities could cause climate change, they did not know what the direction of change might be. Industrial emissions of tiny airborne particles called aerosols might cause cooling, while greenhouse gas emissions would cause warming. Which effect would dominate? For most of the 1970s, nobody knew. So "inadvertent climate modification," while clunky and dull, was an accurate reflection of the state of knowledge. "

Answer to the question: scientists haven't all of a sudden started calling it climate change in the last few years. That's just not what's happened. They are 2 different situations - connected, sometimes interchangeable in literature, but both names have been used for quite some time.

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 11:21 AM. Reason : .]

4/30/2009 11:20:17 AM

You can't possibly deny that the term "climate change" is becoming more popular in the literature.

Furthermore, the above stated reason for and definition of the term "climate change" sums up the entire debate quite neatly.

No one knows jack about jack, and all this CO2 drivel is just that; drivel.

4/30/2009 11:30:37 AM

Quote :

"This is true, but when the claim is that CO2 is trapping heat, then it'd be nice to actually see an overall increase in temperature."

If you just take data from the mid-90s to now, it would look like things are cooling. When you look at the broader trend, there is a definitive warming. It could be natural, but if you look at the 100k year time span, it takes thousands of years to vary what we've varied in the past decade.



[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 11:39 AM. Reason : ]

4/30/2009 11:37:44 AM

Ah, so we should put things in perspective then?



Yes, clearly we should be worried about atmospheric CO2...

Another good one.

4/30/2009 12:41:47 PM

Quote :

"Funny. you'll discount a cooling trend as natural because you've seen it before, but you won't discount warming as natural, even when it's been seen before. In the past 200 years"

Do not think anyone here asserted this.

Quote :

"Quote : "Even if the average global temerperature did claim for the world as a whole does this not mean every part of the planet will have a net increase in annual temperature." This is true, but when the claim is that CO2 is trapping heat, then it'd be nice to actually see an overall increase in temperature. "

Is not this what i said?? Hypothetical global warming rather it be natural, artifical, or aliens putting a giant microwave beam on the planet does not mean
that the entire earth will experience a net uniform increase in temperature. Some research has suggested that increased arctic ice melt would disrupt
the north part of the gulfstream making areas such as the UK actually cooler or areas prone to tropical lows may see a net decrease due to a rise in atmospheric moisture
that would add additional cloud cover.

Just as evidence October 2008 was considered the warmest ever for global temp. Even though this is disputed by some; the NOAA also reported that the US itself
had an October significantly lower than average. Think for NC it was 28th (don't feel like look up exact stat) out of 112 records ranked coolest to warmest.

Quote :

"Tell us what you do, btw. "

Manufacturing engineer btw...

We heavily use the scientific method and feeding back on Sonalari crap above; we create hypothesis for certain process upsets that we do not fully understand.
Impossible and unrealistic is it for us to investigate every potential variable. Often we will focus on one or two possible causes and will conduct
our research and experiments on this in order to disprove the corresponding hypothesis. If after n samples we have established correlation and a certain
degree of confidence we can assert into normal productin what we have found. Using this to improve the process. Technically though nothing is ever
proven nor is a 100% degree of confidence reached. This is why its is a THEORY not a law/fact. Same applies for global warming.
The majority of the climate science community is not out to pad their wallets and conspire with JAmes Hansen or Al Gore contrary to your average republican
bafoons thoughts.

Quote :

"No one knows jack about jack, and all this CO2 drivel is just that; drivel. "

Maybe you do not know jack about jack.

I do not know why or how trees know that spring has arrived and start blooming. Though I can assert when the weather gets warm again and the days grow
longer at the end of winter that the trees soon will be green again.

4/30/2009 1:01:29 PM

Quote :

"Yes, clearly we should be worried about atmospheric CO2"

whatever Pat you should be smart enough to realize that other variables that effect global temperatures have changed since the Cambrian age. On the other hand I think it is reasonable to assume that over the past 1000 years many of these have remained constant or have the same high frequency cycle that has existed for 100's millions of years

4/30/2009 1:06:30 PM

yes, because we've never had a major super volcano or asteroid impact that could disrupt those "high frequency" variables in the past 100s of millions of years

4/30/2009 1:19:49 PM

^Good point. Now we just need to find the pesky E.L.E. volcano thats causing all our problems

4/30/2009 1:33:26 PM

Quote :

"And clearly you didn't read Red Flag 9, then. It shows this change occurring on a multi-decadal time-scale."

And clearly, you're wrong (again) - I did read that section. I did look at their graphs. And you know quite clearly what I'm talking about, although it seems like you are going out of your way to deny this.

Whatever though, I'm tired of debating a point with someone who goes out of their way to be obstinate, and frankly, deliberately obtuse about the matter.

Quote :

"I see 1900 and 1880. What are you looking at. BTW, I only mentioned the sketchy graph in the interest of "full disclosure." If you are going to dismiss their arguments based on that, then you should also dismiss anything the IPCC might say, as they have based a lot of their arguments on scientific fraud as well."

Figure 7, mostly; although I'm realizing that perhaps I am confusing Figure 1's data source for Figure 7's. Still, a problem has already been identified for the so-called "convergence" shown in Figure 7; so it is clearly questionable why we should see such good agreement on Figure 1 (TSI vs. Temp) while the solar cycle length would in fact not reflect this agreement (Figure 7).

Meanwhile, other measurements don't agree with these findings:

Quote :

"Likewise, should I also be suspicious of your paper, as it, too, shows Mann's fraud?"

You keep going back to "Mann had bad data. Mann had bad data!" Would you please bring out a source indicating the corrected data, like I have, if you want to keep harping on that point?

Because here's a series of analysis showing corrections to Mann's original data which still shows a warming trend.



http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646

I'd really like to know why all of these temperature reconstructions are wrong, too.

TKE-Teg posts a graph - from who-knows-where - but regardless, the errors in Mann's data appear to be in discounting the Medieval Warm Period, not in discounting a significant, sustained rise in mean surface temperatures over the 20th century. So, do you propose a graph to discount the one TKE-Teg just posted?

Furthermore, even the magnitude of the MWP is somewhat in dispute:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11644

Furthermore, going back to a prior point, this article talks about the lag you bring up between CO2 and time.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659

Quote :

"BTW, I'm not really sure how that paper can adequately explain away studies that were done after it was written."

Because it's the same bad data. The paper was written using the same data analysis already discredited.

4/30/2009 2:10:36 PM

quite the correlation there

4/30/2009 2:32:44 PM

My graph can beat up your graph

4/30/2009 3:25:34 PM

^^ Wow. A 10-year graph for a 100-year trend, coming from a right-wing blog that on its front page A) Defends torture, B) Has a header "islamofascism."

http://www.hyscience.com/

Trustworthy source, there.

4/30/2009 4:35:12 PM

^^^

^ did you expect anything less from the Right...

Nice graph TKE-Teg a n=10 year is clearly representative and can be used for regression purposes to make a conclusion on
earth climate trends even over the 120+ years that it has been scientifically documented.

Lets start our Global Warming disproving graph by beginning at the known warmest year since records have been taken 1998 (some studies say 2005 was
the warmest on record) and draw squiggly lines. Since our graph will end on a year (2008) that as a low point of an oscillation was colder
relatively to the last few years we can assert that we have proof that humans with a 99% confidence have 0 effect on the climate.
Sounds scientific to me!

4/30/2009 4:48:32 PM

^^seriously man, that's the best you can do. First, that wasn't the website I got that chart from, so it was probably hot linked. Regardless, I don't care where its being hosted. Its a chart constructed by Joe D'Aleo (which is clear as day on the chart itself).

Quote :

"Joseph D’Aleo was the first Director of Meteorology at the cable TV Weather Channel. He has over 30 years experience in professional meteorology. Mr. D’Aleo was Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services International Corporation and Senior Editor of “Dr. Dewpoint” for WSI’s popular Intellicast.com web site. He is a former college professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State College. He has authored and presented a number of papers as well as published a book focused on advanced applications enabled by new technologies and how research into ENSO and other atmospheric and oceanic phenomena has made skillful seasonal forecasts possible. Mr. D’Aleo has also authored many articles and made numerous presentations on the roles cycles in the sun and oceans have played in climate change. Mr. D’Aleo is a Certified Consultant Meteorologist and was elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). He has served as a member and then chairman of the American Meteorological Society’ Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, and has co-chaired national conferences for both the American Meteorological Society and the National Weather Association. Mr. D’Aleo was elected a Councilor for the AMS. Joseph D’Aleo is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin BS, MS and was in the doctoral program at NYU. Mr. D’Aleo’s areas of expertise include climatology, natural factors involved in climate change, weather and climate prediction, and North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). "

way to pwn yourself there.

And seriously, shut up HUR. I'm not ESTABLISHING long term trends. I'm showing the lack of correlation between the two. Oh, and please find a credible resource that shows 2005 as the warmest year. I'll give you a hint, it won't be satellite data.

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 4:53 PM. Reason : k]

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 4:53 PM. Reason : tool]

4/30/2009 4:51:16 PM

Quote :

"^^seriously man, that's the best you can do. First, that wasn't the website I got that chart from, so it was probably hot linked. Regardless, I don't care where its being hosted. Its a chart constructed by Joe D'Aleo (which is clear as day on the chart itself)."

And this is why we cite sources in the first place instead of simply pasting in random graphs. Consider this a lesson in that regard.

Quote :

"I'm not ESTABLISHING long term trends. I'm showing the lack of correlation between the two."

Uh, except that that A) It's too small a dataset to make or break a correlation, B) Almost every serious person speaking to the topic argues that there are multiple drivers of climate, and therefore no one factor will line up "perfectly." And, as I have already shown, cases where people do tend to find "perfect" agreement are typically artifacts of data mishandling. Cherrypicking, over-massaged data, etc.

Again, this is basic thermodynamics. Unless someone here is going to argue that CO2 does not reflect infrared, I don't think that CO2's function as a greenhouse gas is much up for dispute; merely its share as a driver for climate.

4/30/2009 5:25:30 PM

TKE-Teg

I think Jeff Mathers saw your post today with the pretty graph from the Jurassic period and decided to respond in his blog today

Quote :

"One frequently hears comments like, "Earth has had many periods of warmth far exceeding the warmth of today's climate, so we should not be surprised if the current warming of the globe is a natural phenomena". This view is especially prevalent among geologists, who take a very long view of history and are among the most skeptical scientists regarding the reality of human-caused climate change. It is true that Earth's past has had many episodes of natural global warming that we can learn from. But the greatest natural global warming episode of the past 65 million years, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) event of 55 million years ago, presents us with a cautionary tale of how massive releases of greenhouse gases--similar in scale to what humans are now producing--may cause extreme warming of the climate. Earth's orbital variations--the most common form of natural global warming The most common cause of natural global warming over time has been changes in Earth's orbit. Three oscillations in Earth's orbit with periods of 26,000, 41,000, and 100,000 years (called Milankovitch cycles) cause ice ages to be triggered when summer sunshine at 65°N reaches a minimum. The reduced sunlight over Canada, Siberia, and Scandinavia allows winter snowfall to persist through the summer, and thus accumulate and build Northern Hemisphere ice sheets. There isn't enough land in the Southern Hemisphere to allow large, land-based ice sheets to build there, so it is the growth and decay of Northern Hemisphere ice sheets that has controlled the timing of ice ages and warm inter-glacial periods over the past three million years. Earth's orbit is currently in a phase where the amount of sunlight falling at 65°N is changing very little. Thus, the primary mechanism for past natural global warming events is not to blame for the current warming. According to the "official" word on climate, the 2007 report of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the amount of sunlight falling at 65°N is expected to change little over the next 30,000 years, and "it is very unlikely that the Earth would naturally enter into another ice age for at least 30,000 years". "

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1214

4/30/2009 5:26:47 PM

Quote :

"Natural global warming has also occurred in the past due to changes in solar brightness, and natural emissions of natural carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (methane is the primary component of the natural gas we use to heat our homes, is a potent greenhouse gas 20 - 25 more effective at heating the Earth than than CO2, with a lifetime of about 9 years in the atmosphere before reacting with the OH radical to form CO2). I discussed one example of natural global warming in my previous post--volcanoes have emitted enough CO2 over time to account for a large portion of Earth's natural greenhouse effect. However, volcanoes only put about 1 - 3% as much CO2 per year into the atmosphere as human activities do. What, then, does Earth's past tell us about what might happen if we dump 100 times more carbon than volcanoes do into the atmosphere, over a period of a few centuries? The end of Earth's Paleocene era, 55 million years ago, was a time of great warmth on planet Earth. Subtropical vegetation grew in Greenland and Patagonia, and crocodiles swam off the coast of Greenland. Sea surface temperatures at the North Pole were a toasty 64°F (18°C). Tropical palm forests in northern Wyoming played host to early primates. Despite the fact that the sun put out 0.5% less energy than today (equivalent to a global temperature that would be 0.5°C cooler), there was no polar ice cap or Greenland Ice Sheet. The higher temperatures of that era were probably due to high carbon dioxide levels of 560 - 600 ppm. This is far higher than the 280 ppm seen in the 1800s, and the 383 ppm as of 2009. The continents had a different configuration due to continental drift, and this may have kept the world warmer as well. "

4/30/2009 5:28:28 PM

btw

Quote :

"And seriously, shut up HUR. I'm not ESTABLISHING long term trends. I'm showing the lack of correlation between the two. Oh, and please find a credible resource that shows 2005 as the warmest year. I'll give you a hint, it won't be satellite data."

in response to this you are not showing any correlation or relationship based on the data. Your scale is pretty arbitrary for the Y-axis CO2 ppm by volume. If you chose a CO2 ppm scale of 0-1000 (still arbitrary); i'd see a pretty flat CO2 curve in relation to temperature variation. If I came to my boss with this kind of scale to prove my hypothesis in front of the engineering panel she'd probably laugh at me.
Hell you could even scale the graph in a way to make it appear that CO2 levels are inversely proportional to temperature variation.

Quote :

"Oh, and please find a credible resource that shows 2005 as the warmest year. I'll give you a hint, it won't be satellite data."

My sourced post previously states 1998 was the record and 2005 came in 2nd, however, some expert believe 2005 may hold the record. Given the margin of error and enormous size of the earth i think a .04 degree margin is arguable PAt. Not like every square foot of land and ocean can have a thermometer on it or can be accurately modeled via IR imaging data given the wide range of emissivity values of the surface.

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 6:28 PM. Reason : jk]

4/30/2009 6:21:32 PM

I have a source who has a close friend in the athletic department. He said his friend hear a secretary say that global warming is not real and that we are in a cooling trend.

4/30/2009 6:36:53 PM

"he said his friend hear a secretary"??

seriously? if you're going to try to make the point that the other side is stupid, you should at least use proper grammar

4/30/2009 7:42:35 PM

^^^^^^and basic thermodynamics shows that CO2's effect is grossly overstated by the IPCC and crew, and that after 950ppmv has almost no effect to speak of.

4/30/2009 7:52:09 PM

Quote :

"Impossible and unrealistic is it for us to investigate every potential variable. Often we will focus on one or two possible causes and will conduct our research and experiments on this in order to disprove the corresponding hypothesis."

But, you do so with a thorough knowledge of the process, which helps you pick the right one or two causes in the first place.

Moron, gotta call bullshit in your graph, given that we know the 1930s were warmer on average than today.

Quote :

"On the other hand I think it is reasonable to assume that over the past 1000 years many of these have remained constant or have the same high frequency cycle that has existed for 100's millions of years"

It would be reasonable, if we knew that the period for such things was on the order of less than a thousand years. But, we don't.

Quote :

"And clearly, you're wrong (again) - I did read that section. I did look at their graphs. And you know quite clearly what I'm talking about, although it seems like you are going out of your way to deny this."

You said there haven't been similar rates of change over decadal scales. I said there were. I busted out that graph. Where we have two other instances: 1860-1880 and 1910-1930. 20 years and 30 years. As opposed to the 23 years for 1975-1998. What am I missing here?

Quote :

"Figure 7, mostly"

I admitted Figure 7 to you earlier. Why are you harping on that? I'm talking about Figure 1 and Figure 3.

Quote :

"Meanwhile, other measurements don't agree with these findings:"

You must note that Figure 1 is a running mean. And the figure you showed is not. Plus, it's not showing the same instrumental data in the first place.

Quote :

"You keep going back to "Mann had bad data. Mann had bad data!" Would you please bring out a source indicating the corrected data, like I have, if you want to keep harping on that point?"

It's not that Mann had "bad data." Mann manipulated the data fraudulently. This has been well established.

Quote :

"Because here's a series of analysis showing corrections to Mann's original data which still shows a warming trend."

Funny. That data doesn't show the little ice age OR the warm period. Both of which we pretty much know existed. Plus, note that the "stick" occurs with thermometer data. Something we, again, know is suspect. Finally, if it is still using his CO2-biased data sets, then the graph is even more suspect. You don't use Z as a proxy for X when you know that Y affects Z as well.

And look at all the tree-rings in that second figure. Jeez, talk about being dishonest.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V3/N14/EDIT.php

Quote :

"the errors in Mann's data appear to be in discounting the Medieval Warm Period, not in discounting a significant, sustained rise in mean surface temperatures over the 20th century."

And if he got something we KNOW to have happened, you know, WRONG, then can you really trust any thing else he puts out? We know that he fraudulently removed the MWP. Why the fuck should we trust his numbers for later on?

Quote :

"Furthermore, going back to a prior point, this article talks about the lag you bring up between CO2 and time."

I don't see anything in that article that refutes the initial point, beyond speculation... "Umm, it warmed up, CO2 got released, and that sped up the warming, releasing more CO2..." Come on, give me some DATA to back that up. In fact, it sums up its argument here:

Quote :

"To repeat, the evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas depends mainly on physics, not on the correlation with past temperature, which tells us nothing about cause and effect."

As in, "we are still saying CO2 is a GHG." Great, thank you, Captain Obvious.

Quote :

"The paper was written using the same data analysis already discredited."

And you would need proof of this claim, you know...

Quote :

"Again, this is basic thermodynamics."

Funny that you mention thermo. Given that satellite measurements show the earth is releasing more heat radiation in to space than it is receiving... Wonder what that would do to temperatures...

Quote :

"My sourced post previously states 1998 was the record and 2005 came in 2nd, however, some expert believe 2005 may hold the record."

And we have already established that your source is NOT reputable. Yes, James Hansen is NOT reputable.

4/30/2009 8:07:19 PM

Quote :

"You said there haven't been similar rates of change over decadal scales. I said there were. I busted out that graph. Where we have two other instances: 1860-1880 and 1910-1930. 20 years and 30 years. As opposed to the 23 years for 1975-1998. What am I missing here?"

I was implying the continuance of a sustained trend. That is, if the trend were to continue over several decades more - say, for instance, to the low end of the IPCC projections, to be conservative.

Quote :

"I admitted Figure 7 to you earlier. Why are you harping on that? I'm talking about Figure 1 and Figure 3."

I already explained in the following sentence.

Quote :

"Figure 7, mostly; although I'm realizing that perhaps I am confusing Figure 1's data source for Figure 7's. Still, a problem has already been identified for the so-called "convergence" shown in Figure 7; so it is clearly questionable why we should see such good agreement on Figure 1 (TSI vs. Temp) while the solar cycle length would in fact not reflect this agreement (Figure 7)."

Quote :

"It's not that Mann had "bad data." Mann manipulated the data fraudulently. This has been well established."

I've produced eight independent studies, using different data sources - including tree rings, boreholes, ice cores, etc. Eight (ah-ah-ah). All fraudulent too?

Quote :

"Funny. That data doesn't show the little ice age OR the warm period. Both of which we pretty much know existed. Plus, note that the "stick" occurs with thermometer data. Something we, again, know is suspect. Finally, if it is still using his CO2-biased data sets, then the graph is even more suspect. You don't use Z as a proxy for X when you know that Y affects Z as well."

I've already pointed out where the temperature variation of the MWP is already in dispute (i.e., the magnitude).

Quote :

"And look at all the tree-rings in that second figure. Jeez, talk about being dishonest. http://www.co2science.org/articles/V3/N14/EDIT.php"

The use of tree rings for measuring paleotemperature is pretty established science. Unless you can somehow demonstrate that the data was misapplied in this case... well, we've got your word against theirs. Eight independent collaborations.

Quote :

"And if he got something we KNOW to have happened, you know, WRONG, then can you really trust any thing else he puts out? We know that he fraudulently removed the MWP. Why the fuck should we trust his numbers for later on?"

Your beef is with the MWP data. You have not demonstrated a problem with Mann's 20th century data. The 20th century data is the data at issue.

Quote :

"As in, "we are still saying CO2 is a GHG." Great, thank you, Captain Obvious."

So, do you dispute the physics there, Cap'n Contrarian, or are we good on this one?

Quote :

"And you would need proof of this claim, you know..."

Figure 7 is the exact same graph from before. With the same points! I've given you a cite for that paper, even.

Quote :

"Funny that you mention thermo. Given that satellite measurements show the earth is releasing more heat radiation in to space than it is receiving... Wonder what that would do to temperatures..."

A convection problem, for you. Imagine the that the inner surface of some object - say, thin shell with a layer of air, with another sphere on the inside.

Now, assume that the inner sphere begins to heat up (the analogy obviously being imperfect, trying to reduce this strictly to thermodynamics and not optics). What do you suppose will eventually happen to the outer shell temperature as a function of time? (Hint: Use Newton's Law of Cooling.)

I will leave this as an exercise to the reader.

4/30/2009 9:42:32 PM

Quote :

"I've produced eight independent studies, using different data sources - including tree rings, boreholes, ice cores, etc. Eight (ah-ah-ah). All fraudulent too?"

And I've pointed out that practically all of those used tree-rings and bristlecones. Dishonest data sources which even the IPCC (at one time) said we should stay away from.

Quote :

"Eight independent collaborations. "

Eight sets of bad data that agree are still eight sets of bad data. or do you think it is OK to try and establish a connection between X and Y by using Z as a proxy for X, when Y directly affects Z? It's established science? Great! it's also established that CO2 DIRECTLY affects tree rings. And it makes them look the same way it would look if there were only higher temperatures.

Quote :

"You have not demonstrated a problem with Mann's 20th century data."

So, you are OK with the later data in a set of data where we KNOW he faked the earlier data? Seriously? Seriously?

Quote :

"I've already pointed out where the temperature variation of the MWP is already in dispute (i.e., the magnitude). "

Kind of convenient that we have to "dispute" accepted fact and history in order to prove our hypothesis today, isn't it?

Quote :

"So, do you dispute the physics there, Cap'n Contrarian, or are we good on this one?"

Totally irrelevant to the point I was making.

Quote :

"Figure 7 is the exact same graph from before."

False. TSI vs sunspots only. NOT the same. AND, it does NOT imply that the two data sets were handled identically. Moreover, the dataset for figure 1 originated in 1998 and was updated in 2005, AFTER the study you've posted. Figure 7 was created in 1991, so it could not have possibly used the data sets from 1998.

And, your thought experiment is foolish. When the source of the heat is external, then you should NOT expect to radiate more heat than you receive if the temperature is to continue increasing.

4/30/2009 10:39:49 PM

Quote :

"False. TSI vs sunspots only. NOT the same. AND, it does NOT imply that the two data sets were handled identically. Moreover, the dataset for figure 1 originated in 1998 and was updated in 2005, AFTER the study you've posted. Figure 7 was created in 1991, so it could not have possibly used the data sets from 1998."

FIGURE 7.

In case that wasn't clear.

FIGURE 7.

Quote :

"Figure 7: Sunspot cycle length versus smoothed global mean temperatures from 1850 to 1970 and compared with CO2 concentration"

This is the exact graph that was cited for data errors. And, what's this? It's showing up again. Clearly, these good folks haven't been chastened to even update their data.

Quote :

"And, your thought experiment is foolish. When the source of the heat is external, then you should NOT expect to radiate more heat than you receive if the temperature is to continue increasing."

It's fairly clear at this point that you fail at understanding the proposed physics of global warming at all.

The reason this analogy was made this way was to get around the issue of optics. But, if you must: light of visible to UV goes in. It downshifts to IR.

Now, this IR is reflected by CO2 and water vapor, reducing its radiation into space.

Thus, heat increases on the inner surface.

Now, if you'd care to try my thermodynamics challenge again, I'll be waiting with bated breath.

4/30/2009 10:54:31 PM

Quote :

"This is the exact graph that was cited for data errors."

We are fucking going in circles. I ALREADY ADMITTED 7 WAS BOGUS. JESUS. FUCKING. CHRIST.

Quote :

"Now, this IR is reflected by CO2 and water vapor, reducing its radiation into space."

But, more heat still leaves the surface. and somehow you have a net heating? you are freaking amazing!

4/30/2009 10:58:23 PM

Ok. Work with me here.

Radiation from the Sun comes in. Downscatters to IR.

This IR goes to leave. Bam! Intercepted by gasses which are opaque to IR. Which means less heat escapes.

Less heat escaping implies that the surface temperature goes up.

Newton's law of cooling tells us that if we treat the surface to the atmosphere as a convection-based heat transfer, as we increase the heat of the surface, the heat flux goes up.

So, surface heats up - ergo, heat flux goes up to the atmosphere, ergo atmosphere grows warmer in turn.

Seriously, you're an engineer. This is basic stuff.

4/30/2009 11:09:11 PM

and this is all fine and dandy, except the SOURCE is external. Or are you saying all heat is not created equal. or are you saying you will have 7 times the heat LEAVING as you have coming in? Are you seriously telling me that CO2 is adding a 7x heating effect? really?

you are advocating the creation of heat from nothing. it's absurd

4/30/2009 11:15:57 PM

Quote :

"and this is all fine and dandy, except the SOURCE is external. Or are you saying all heat is not created equal. or are you saying you will have 7 times the heat LEAVING as you have coming in? Are you seriously telling me that CO2 is adding a 7x heating effect? really?"

No, no, and no.

Look, this is why optics is important.

Let's assume UV comes in, downscatters to visible light.

What happens? Well, nothing; the atmosphere is (mostly) opaque to visible light. Any light not absorbed by the surface reflects right back out into space, gone forever.

Now, solar radiation comes in, and downscatters to infrared. Water and CO2 are opaque to IR. When IR hits these, it is reflected back toward the surface; it does not escape like visible light.

Look, go back to a concrete example of a greenhouse, if you must, or a car in the heat.

Now, a car in the hot sun admits visible light. This visible light downscatters in the car to IR. Your car glass is opaque to IR; it is trapped, heating the seats and heating the air.

Now, what do you suppose happens to the glass itself? The glass itself reflects IR; it's not absorbing it in great quantity. Nor does it absorb visible light. Yet it is in direct thermal contact with the hot air inside the car which gets warmer. So what do you suppose happens when a hot gas is in contact with a glass window which is not absorbing the radiant energy, but rather transmitting and reflecting it?

Quote :

"you are advocating the creation of heat from nothing. it's absurd"

No, I am advocating a basic understanding of optics. Light at one wavelength easily passes through - it is not absorbed or reflected. Light of another wavelength is reflected.

This means that when light changes wavelengths, some of it doesn't go away into space - it gets reflected back to the surface (otherwise, we'd be a lot like the moon - very, very cold at night). This surface heating heats the atmosphere.

So, to review:

Light hits the surface (radiated), bounces away at IR (downscatter, radiated).
IR hits CO2, Water vapor, reflects back to the surface (scatter). More of these means more IR is reflected instead of being radiated away in space.
Surface heats up.
Surface heat convects to the atmosphere.
Atmosphere gets warmer.

No creation of heat, here. Notice how we have convection and radiation here, though.

4/30/2009 11:31:42 PM

The only problem with that is that the upper atmosphere hot spots that the IPCC says we should have as a tell tale sign of increased global warming from CO2 is NOT there. Maybe it'll be there next year, after everything else has cooled off some more.

4/30/2009 11:37:30 PM

so, we have X amount of overall radiation. some gets trapped. And we end up with 7X leaving the earth. makes sense

4/30/2009 11:52:14 PM

k

[Edited on May 1, 2009 at 12:02 AM. Reason : k]

4/30/2009 11:55:41 PM