Global warming can't be all bad. I'm sure Greenland would love to have those vineyards back.
...Silly bird,
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11644
several independent studies called into question the hockey stick's conclusions. A number of climate experts noted that the Earth experienced both a widely recognized Medieval Warm Period from about A.D. 800 to 1400, as well as the Little Ice Age from 1600 to 1850. The hockey stick missed both of these significant climate trends. Other researchers found methodological flaws with the hockey stick, arguing some data sources were misused, several calculations were done incorrectly and some of the data were simply obsolete.http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/when-warmings-hockey-stick-breaks
Because the hockey stick image has been regularly used to promote and justify proposed climate legislation, Congress asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to examine the hockey stick controversy. Their report, released in early July, confirmed many of the criticisms of the hockey stick. Whereas the authors of the research that produced the hockey stick concluded "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium," the NAS found little confidence could be placed in those claims.
The NAS also found the original researchers used proxy data for past temperature reconstructions that were unreliable, the historic climate reconstruction failed important tests for verifiability and the methods used underestimated the uncertainty in the conclusions reached.
Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/
But it wasnt so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.
Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!
Silly bird,
The Hockey Stick graph has long been debunked.
This conclusion
has subsequently been supported by an
array of evidence that includes both additional
large-scale surface temperature reconstructions
and pronounced changes in a variety of local
proxy indicators, such as melting on icecaps and
the retreat of glaciers around the world
The NAS, even though my links showed it found flaws in Mann's research, says that the corraborating evidence is melting glaciers.
Your concession is duly noted.
The NAS, even though my links showed it found flaws in Mann's research, says that the corraborating evidence is melting glaciers.
A lot of scientific theories have flaws. We don't throw out scientific theories just because they are flawed.
"We" who??? :rotf:
The NAS, even though my links showed it found flaws in Mann's research, says that the corraborating evidence is melting glaciers.
A lot of scientific theories have flaws. We don't throw out scientific theories just because they are flawed.
"We" who??? :rotf:
Your concession is duly noted.
Come back when you have more than conjecture based on flawed research and skewed statistics before asking us to hand over our laws and economy to duplicitious demagogues in Lear jets.
The theory that the sun was the center of the universe was rather flawed. So is the theory that life can spontaneously emerge from non-living matter. Are you saying that we find these still valid somehow?
Nonsense. As I have already pointed out, the NAS panel which studied the hockey stick determined that flaws in it were not large enough to change the overall conclusion.Based on phenomenon such as glacial melting; which, since we don't have reliable data on anthro-GW is more than likely cyclical plus volcanic.
My earlier column this week detailed the work of a volunteer team to assess problems with US temperature data used for climate modeling. One of these people is Steve McIntyre, who operates the site climateaudit.org. While inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a strange discontinuity, or "jump" in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000.
These graphs were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.
McKintyre notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an "oversight" that would be fixed in the next data refresh.
NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.
The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge.
Then again -- maybe not. I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media.
According to the NAS, flaws in the hockey stick are not significant enough to warrant its dismissal.
Remember the revised NASA data that showed 1934--not 1998--was the hottest year?
The theory that the earth was the center of the universe was rather flawed. So is the theory that life can spontaneously emerge from non-living matter. Are you saying that we find these still valid even now?Dude -- don't make me agree with TNO. The strawman fallacy of "life emerging from non-life" (i.e. abiogenesis) has been soundly defeated in the realm of science. Over hundreds of years. That is not even similar to the infant hobby (not even a full science) of Climatology.
Dude -- don't make me agree with TNO. The strawman fallacy of "life emerging from non-life" (i.e. abiogenesis) has been soundly defeated in the realm of science. Over hundreds of years. That is not even similar to the infant hobby (not even a full science) of Climatology.Yes, I know. My point was that despite what he said, we do dump flawed theories like that, and we're seeing the same thing with global warming. Yet people still cling to it despite the evidence to the contrary.
Yes, I know. My point was that despite what he said, we do dump flawed theories like that, and we're seeing the same thing with global warming. Yet people still cling to it despite the evidence to the contrary.
Now, global warming is one thing (the climate continually changing, solar cycles, etc.). It's quite another to say that we are causing the earth to heat up because of a few Hummers and SUVs, outdoor barbecues, and capitalism in general.
You speak for "mankind"??? :mental: :rotf:
"We" who??? :rotf:
Mankind.
True, if the Earth is warming, it's most likely due to a very active volcano season and, damn, one more thing.......oh yeah, that bigass ball of fire 93 million miles away.
I'm a Christian, but the way Hannity debates this issue can easily be challenged. His point is that if you believe in evolution, etc., that you believe something came from nothing.
The sun has been more or less ruled out as being the primary cause of global warming. Scientists have very accurate data from satellites which indicates that temperatures on Earth have been increasing for the past few decades despite the fact that solar activity has remained the same for the past few decades.
You speak for "mankind"??? :mental: :rotf:
True, if the Earth is warming, it's most likely due to a very active volcano season and, damn, one more thing.......oh yeah, that bigass ball of fire 93 million miles away.
The sun has been more or less ruled out as being the primary cause of global warming. Scientists have very accurate data from satellites which indicates that temperatures on Earth have been increasing for the past few decades despite the fact that solar activity has remained the same for the past few decades.
You speak for "mankind"??? :mental: :rotf:
"We" who??? :rotf:
Mankind.
They started with the conclusion and search for "facts" which support it and ignore those that do not. :whatever:True, if the Earth is warming, it's most likely due to a very active volcano season and, damn, one more thing.......oh yeah, that bigass ball of fire 93 million miles away.
The sun has been more or less ruled out as being the primary cause of global warming. Scientists have very accurate data from satellites which indicates that temperatures on Earth have been increasing for the past few decades despite the fact that solar activity has remained the same for the past few decades.
that simply isn't true. first of all, solar activity hasn't remained the same for "the past few decades"; it fluctuates in 11 year cycles. but at very best, you have a sample size that is too small to draw that sort of conclusion.
I'm wondering what's causing the global warming on Mars, then:
****
A Gloomy Mars Warms Up
ScienceDaily (May 28, 2007) — For the past 30 years, NASA scientists have been using high-tech satellite equipment to study features on the face of Mars. It appears a slight change in the planet’s surface luster has caused its temperature to rise.
link (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070527101114.htm)
***
Probably Cheney playing what that damn VRWC climate machine, again.
Yeah, some still believe the earth is flat too. :whatever:You speak for "mankind"??? :mental: :rotf:
Did mankind throw out the Theory of Relativity when flaws were found in it? Of course not.
We've had ice ages and ice melting since the beginning of time, yet the automobile is only about 100 years old. ....and now we're to blame? No ******* way I'm buying that.
I don't understand why liberals bash certain Christians on the age of the Earth, but think they can draw some kind of doomsday event with research that's only a very minute fraction of 1% of the life of the Earth.
You are making a huge assumption. The fact that natural processes have driven cooling and warming cycles in the past does not mean that natural processes are driving climate change now.
True, if the Earth is warming, it's most likely due to a very active volcano season and, damn, one more thing.......oh yeah, that bigass ball of fire 93 million miles away.
The sun has been more or less ruled out as being the primary cause of global warming. Scientists have very accurate data from satellites which indicates that temperatures on Earth have been increasing for the past few decades despite the fact that solar activity has remained the same for the past few decades.
that simply isn't true. first of all, solar activity hasn't remained the same for "the past few decades"; it fluctuates in 11 year cycles. but at very best, you have a sample size that is too small to draw that sort of conclusion.
You are making a huge assumption. The fact that natural processes have driven cooling and warming cycles in the past does not mean that natural processes are driving climate change now.
Are you assuming the natural processes have stopped since we started becoming more civilized? :uhsure:
We've had ice ages and ice melting since the beginning of time, yet the automobile is only about 100 years old. ....and now we're to blame? No ******* way I'm buying that.
You are making a huge assumption. The fact that natural processes have driven cooling and warming cycles in the past does not mean that natural processes are driving climate change now.QuoteI don't understand why liberals bash certain Christians on the age of the Earth, but think they can draw some kind of doomsday event with research that's only a very minute fraction of 1% of the life of the Earth.
Most of the science on global warming does not attempt to predict the consequences global warming will have on mankind.
that simply isn't true. first of all, solar activity hasn't remained the same for "the past few decades"; it fluctuates in 11 year cycles. but at very best, you have a sample size that is too small to draw that sort of conclusion.
You always argue from the "prove a negative" perspective -- a standard liberal ploy. Damn, read this and then get back to us WITHOUT every sentence being a logical fallacy, OK? http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
You always argue from the "prove a negative" perspective -- a standard liberal ploy. Damn, read this and then get back to us WITHOUT every sentence being a logical fallacy, OK? http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Dude... I'm not arguing a negative. I'm simply telling you that most of the research done on global warming has been done with the intent of determining what is causing it. Sure, some have speculated that climate change might pose huge problems for humanity, but that speculation is apart from the science.
Except your red line was drawn using the bullshit Hockeystick and its since revised temp data set.that simply isn't true. first of all, solar activity hasn't remained the same for "the past few decades"; it fluctuates in 11 year cycles. but at very best, you have a sample size that is too small to draw that sort of conclusion.
Well, of course, solar activity fluctuates constantly, but despite those fluctuations, solar activity has not increased in the past few decades...
(http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif)
http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/
That is where you are 100% wrong. They STARTED from the premise that GW is the result of human activity and worked backwards to create a theory that fits using more guesswork than science. That is how they get the money and the power.
that simply isn't true. first of all, solar activity hasn't remained the same for "the past few decades"; it fluctuates in 11 year cycles. but at very best, you have a sample size that is too small to draw that sort of conclusion.
Well, of course solar activity fluctuates constantly, but despite those fluctuations, solar activity has not increased in the past few decades...
(http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif)
http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/
Except your red line was drawn using the bullshit Hockeystick and its since revised temp data set.
That is where you are 100% wrong. They STARTED from the premise that GW is the result of human activity and worked backwards to create a theory that fits using more guesswork than science. That is how they get the money and the power.
Feel free to point out any scientific study which starts with the premise that mankind is the cause of global warming.
PARIS — Scientists from 113 countries issued a landmark report Friday saying they have little doubt global warming is caused by man, and predicting that hotter temperatures and rises in sea level will "continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution.
A top U.S. government scientist, Susan Solomon, said "there can be no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human activities."
Environmental campaigners urged the United States and other industrial nations to significantly cut their emissions of greenhouse gases in response to the long-awaited report by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Meaningless. The Earth is billions of years old and has been habitated by animals for millions. A 20 year reading is a 0.00001% sampling -- statistically meaningless.
That is where you are 100% wrong. They STARTED from the premise that GW is the result of human activity and worked backwards to create a theory that fits using more guesswork than science. That is how they get the money and the power.
Feel free to point out any scientific study which starts with the premise that mankind is the cause of global warming.QuotePARIS — Scientists from 113 countries issued a landmark report Friday saying they have little doubt global warming is caused by man, and predicting that hotter temperatures and rises in sea level will "continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution.
A top U.S. government scientist, Susan Solomon, said "there can be no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human activities."
Environmental campaigners urged the United States and other industrial nations to significantly cut their emissions of greenhouse gases in response to the long-awaited report by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
LINKY DINK (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249659,00.html)
:mental:
Blame "mankind" and then demand laws to hand over control of our economies to moonbats. :whatever:
LINKY DINK (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249659,00.html)
:mental:
Blame "mankind" and then demand laws to hand over control of our economies to moonbats. :whatever:
Deflection and obfuscation.
Except your red line was drawn using the bullshit Hockeystick and its since revised temp data set.
Revisions to the temperature data set affected only US temperature data and the revision was extremely small. The hockey stick is still in play.
Of course, if you are the type of person who bases your opinion of scientific matters on work which has not been published in peer reviewed science journals, I can see why you might think that the hockey stick is broken.
In 2006, Hansen accused the Bush Administration of attempting to censor him. The issue stemmed from an email sent by a 23-year old NASA public affairs intern. It warned Hansen over repeated violations of NASA's official press policy, which requires the agency be notified prior to interviews. Hansen claimed he was being "silenced," despite delivering over 1,400 interviews in recent years, including 15 the very month he made the claim. While he admits to violating the NASA press policy, Hansen states he had a "constitutional right" to grant interviews. Hansen then began a barrage of public appearances on TV, radio and in lecture halls decrying the politicization of climate science.
Turns out he was right. Science was being politicized. By him.
A report revealed just this week, shows the 'Open Society Institute' funded Hansen to the tune of $720,000, carefully orchestrating his entire media campaign. OSI, a political group which spent $74 million in 2006 to "shape public policy," is funded by billionaire George Soros, the largest backer of Kerry's 2004 Presidential Campaign. Soros, who once declared that "removing Bush from office was the "central focus" of his life, has also given tens of millions of dollars to MoveOn.Org and other political action groups.
Certainly Soros has a right to spend his own money. But NASA officials have a responsibility to accurate, unbiased, nonpartisan science. For Hansen to secretly receive a large check from Soros, then begin making unsubstantiated claims about administrative influence on climate science is more than suspicious -- it's a clear conflict of interest.
But the issues don't stop here. Hansen received an earlier $250,000 grant from the Heinz Foundation, an organization run by Kerry's wife, which he followed by publicly endorsing Kerry. Hansen also acted as a paid consultant to Gore during the making of his global-warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," and even personally promoted the film during an NYC event.
After the the GISS data error was revealed, Hansen finally agreed to make public the method he uses to generate "official" temperature records from the actual readings. That process has been revealed to be thousands of lines of source code, containing hundreds of arbitrary "bias" adjustments to individual sites, tossing out many readings entirely, and raising (or lowering) the actual values for others, sometimes by several degrees. Many areas with weak or no rising temperature trends are therefore given, after adjustment, a much sharper trend. A full audit of the Hansen code is currently underway, but it seems clear that Hansen has more explaining to do.
George Deutsch, the NASA intern who resigned over the censorship fallout, said he was initially warned about Hansen when starting the job, "People said ... you gotta watch that guy. He is a loose cannon; he is kind of crazy. He is difficult to work with; he is an alarmist; he exaggerates.'"
Deflection and obfuscation.
1. The hockey stick provided the same output regardless of the data set used...even random numbers
2. The hockey stick has not been peer reviewed because they would not release the program.
3. You're claming NASA's temp readings are invalid because they aren't peer-reviewed. That takes brass.
Rely?
'Cuz it was McIntyre that got NASA to revise its temp data.
Rely?
'Cuz it was McIntyre that got NASA to revise its temp data.
Oh, so the demagogues only used bad data when it came to the US...but everything else is stills cary bad.Rely?
'Cuz it was McIntyre that got NASA to revise its temp data.
Right... McIntyre got NASA to revise some local temperature data which had no perceptible effect on the global mean. What he has not done is break the hockey stick.
I think it's pretty clear that he's not going to believe anyone that contends a point that is in opposition to his own. Hell, he thinks consensus=truth. :whatever:
If that's the case perhaps you would care to comment...http://www.conservativescave.com/index.php?topic=1752.0I think it's pretty clear that he's not going to believe anyone that contends a point that is in opposition to his own. Hell, he thinks consensus=truth. :whatever:
I fully acknowledge the theory of anthropogenic climate change could be totally wrong.
...and of course the American Meterological Society won't gain a dime from gw study. :whatever:Deflection and obfuscation.
1. The hockey stick provided the same output regardless of the data set used...even random numbers
2. The hockey stick has not been peer reviewed because they would not release the program.
3. You're claming NASA's temp readings are invalid because they aren't peer-reviewed. That takes brass.
Sensational claims by Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, which form the basis of your argument against the hockey stick, have recently been discredited in a peer reviewed study put out by the American Meterological Society...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=10
Wake me up when McIntyre and McKitrick get their work on climate change published in a respected scientific journal.
Why the **** is this thread 4 pages???It was an interesting movie at an interesting time. Not a good time, just an interesting time. It had quite an impact and shouldn't be tossed as easily as you are.
Anyways, speaking of Chicken Little syndrome, the Sci-Fi channel is running "The Day After". Not the one with the faggot from Ride of the Rumprangers, but the 1983 movie anti-nuke propaganda. I watched a bit of it.... it was bullshit, so I said **** it and switched it to Dirty Jobs.