The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on January 29, 2008, 03:57:56 PM
-
Admittedly, TNO is the only advocate in the forum at this; so I suppose this thread is mostly for him/her/it.
The debate about the scope of AGW is a debate that can go around for some time with no real headway by either side. So perhaps it should be more reasonable to talk in practical terms.
What exactly should be DONE with AGW and how extensively based on the natuer of the debate.
Ultimately this means laws, economic policy, industrial regulation. How far, how deep and for how long in what directions?
-
Admittedly, TNO is the only advocate in the forum at this; so I suppose this thread is mostly for him/her/it.
The debate about the scope of AGW is a debate that can go around for some time with no real headway by either side. So perhaps it should be more reasonable to talk in practical terms.
What exactly should be DONE with AGW and how extensively based on the natuer of the debate.
Ultimately this means laws, economic policy, industrial regulation. How far, how deep and for how long in what directions?
Because the science on what, if anything, can be done about global warming is new and highy speculative, I don't know if I know enough about the topic to comment on it, but I'll try...
I get the sense that some here expect me to follow some sort of script which involves me extoling the virtues of the Kyoto Protocols, but to be honest, I just don't feel comfortable doing that. I have serious questions and reservations about the Kyoto Protocols. I think that what governments need to do right now is increase funding for research on what, if anything, can be done to slow or halt global warming and on what might happen if we allow global warming to continue. What governments should not do is sit idly by waiting for some sort of great debunking of the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
Once scientists have a reasonably good idea about what can be done to slow or halt global warming, governments must be willing to act on recommendations by scientists. Look at it this way... If doctors were to tell you that your eating habits are putting your life at risk, would you change your eating habits or would you gamble on the doctors being wrong?
-
Not necessarily Kyoto. Heaven knows plenty of "ideas" have been floated; some scarier than others.
My main point is: if we are uncertain to the point of indeciveness, why bother fighting?
If some have decided on what eneds to be done are their proposals worth it?
-
Not necessarily Kyoto. Heaven knows plenty of "ideas" have been floated; some scarier than others.
My main point is: if we are uncertain to the point of indeciveness, why bother fighting?
If some have decided on what eneds to be done are their proposals worth it?
If we are uncertain about the effects of climate change on mankind, then we should strive to learn more. I have a lot of confidence in science and I believe that if there is a way to slow or stop gobal warming, scientists will find it.
-
Research on HOW global warming is occuring needs to be done. Not how to stop it.
We need irrevocable proof that humanity is the cause of it, before we "attempt" to do anything about it.
Once it is proven that humanity is the primary cause of this warming trend, then and only then should we take any steps at all to mitigate what we've done.
And personally I don't think we can do anything. If we cannot do anything to change the path of a hurricane, or cause a severe thunderstorm to prematurely collapse, then how are we expected to change the global juggernaught that is our climate?
That is also why I don't believe we have had any effect on the climate.
-
If we are uncertain about the effects of climate change on mankind, then we should strive to learn more. I have a lot of confidence in science and I believe that if there is a way to slow or stop gobal warming, scientists will find it.
Can we stop it? Should we even try?
I'm not saying I want dirty water and smoggy air but as there is so much uncertainty about AGW it seems the empirical thing to do is to ascertain more definitively how much AGW is a factor.
This is my only position and I think it is a fair position considering how much the AGW camp wants to impose regulations and sanctions on people and their livelihoods.
-
Research on HOW global warming is occuring needs to be done. Not how to stop it.
We need irrevocable proof that humanity is the cause of it, before we "attempt" to do anything about it.
Once it is proven that humanity is the primary cause of this warming trend, then and only then should we take any steps at all to mitigate what we've done.
If 9 out of 10 doctors, all equally qualified, tell you that you need surgery, would you go with the opinion of the 9 or the opinion of the 1?
And personally I don't think we can do anything. If we cannot do anything to change the path of a hurricane, or cause a severe thunderstorm to prematurely collapse, then how are we expected to change the global juggernaught that is our climate?
That is also why I don't believe we have had any effect on the climate.
Weather and climate are related but are not the same thing.
-
If 9 out of 10 doctors, all equally qualified, tell you that you need surgery, would you go with the opinion of the 9 or the opinion of the 1?
Do the 9 mean you need surgery? Or is it just their consensus? Suppose they're general practitioners but you need one that specializes in Endoscopy?
Consensus is NO way to base science. It's too prone to agenda.
-
If 9 out of 10 doctors, all equally qualified, tell you that you need surgery, would you go with the opinion of the 9 or the opinion of the 1?
What if they're phrenologists?
BTW - do 9 out fo 10 climatologists affirm AGW?
-
Research on HOW global warming is occuring needs to be done. Not how to stop it.
We need irrevocable proof that humanity is the cause of it, before we "attempt" to do anything about it.
Once it is proven that humanity is the primary cause of this warming trend, then and only then should we take any steps at all to mitigate what we've done.
If 9 out of 10 doctors, all equally qualified, tell you that you need surgery, would you go with the opinion of the 9 or the opinion of the 1?
And personally I don't think we can do anything. If we cannot do anything to change the path of a hurricane, or cause a severe thunderstorm to prematurely collapse, then how are we expected to change the global juggernaught that is our climate?
That is also why I don't believe we have had any effect on the climate.
Weather and climate are related but are not the same thing.
Numbers means nothing. It all depends on the doctors. And what if it radical surgery like a limb amputation? Let me extend your analogy. What if you knew the doctors who recommended the surgery KNEW they would get full-fare fees for the operation and the one doctor had no such personal interest?
Before you say that isn't a real world example, I suggest you research the huge increase in C-section births that are done now, NOT out of medical necessity but to financially protect the doctors from lawsuits.
-
If 9 out of 10 doctors, all equally qualified, tell you that you need surgery, would you go with the opinion of the 9 or the opinion of the 1?
What if they're phrenologists?
BTW - do 9 out fo 10 climatologists affirm AGW?
We have a problem there -- anyone can call themselves a "Climatologist." It is like "Futurist."
-
If 9 out of 10 doctors, all equally qualified, tell you that you need surgery, would you go with the opinion of the 9 or the opinion of the 1?
What if they're phrenologists?
BTW - do 9 out fo 10 climatologists affirm AGW?
We have a problem there -- anyone can call themselves a "Climatologist." It is like "Futurist."
I dunno. I'm sure there are empirical methodologies.
I'm sure if you sawed algore in half you could examine his ruings for carbon deposit thickness.
I would certainly be willing to try in the name of global balance.
-
Research on HOW global warming is occuring needs to be done. Not how to stop it.
We need irrevocable proof that humanity is the cause of it, before we "attempt" to do anything about it.
Once it is proven that humanity is the primary cause of this warming trend, then and only then should we take any steps at all to mitigate what we've done.
If 9 out of 10 doctors, all equally qualified, tell you that you need surgery, would you go with the opinion of the 9 or the opinion of the 1?
And personally I don't think we can do anything. If we cannot do anything to change the path of a hurricane, or cause a severe thunderstorm to prematurely collapse, then how are we expected to change the global juggernaught that is our climate?
That is also why I don't believe we have had any effect on the climate.
Weather and climate are related but are not the same thing.
I'm a Meteorologist, I'm sure I understand the relationship between Climate and Weather more then you do. As a result, I'm also sure I have a better grasp of what the "global climate" actually is then you do.
Let me ask you something. If 9 of those 10 doctors had just graduated school, and where still in their internship, all at the same time having their pockets lined by organizations who stand to gain something from that surgery, would you still trust them?
When I reference the internship, I'm not saying that the "scientists" who support the man-made theory are inexperienced, I'm using it in the reference that we just honestly don't know what the hell is going on.
The atmosphere if a ungodly huge engine. Unless you where to honestly spend a long time studying it, I find it doubtful that you could truly grasp just how complex, and powerful it is. We can't create models that can give you any serious accuracy more then 7 days out, yet we're supposed to trust models that map this entire engine for the next century? I'm sorry, but thats a ****ing joke.
In my professional opinion, I think any impact that mankind has had on the atmosphere, has been nothing more then a pin prick on the skin that it probably hasn't even noticed yet.
-
I'll bite, what the Hell does the "A" stand for?
And as I have said elsewhere, IF the popular theory of global warming (or "Global Climate Change" when the weather is behaving badly for demonstrating 'Warming'), it means there is an accumulated load of gases in the atmosphere that would continue to escalate change even if we stopped cold on producing the gases. Yes, that's right, we could bring all industry worldwide to a screeching halt and it would take decades to make any difference, and centuries to actually reverse, and treating human industrial emissions as the exclusive problem even at that...it's like trying to stop a mile-long high-speed freight train in six feet, or slalom race a cruise ship through a line of bouys that are only a bit over its own length apart at 20 knots. The inertia of the system is an implacable and unbeatable enemy of such thinking, it can't actually work!
-
A = anthropogenic
-
I'm a Meteorologist,
I forgot about that. Dude, you SO have a job when you ETS or retire..if you continue on with your studies.
http://www.nbcaugusta.com/about/personalities/weatherbios/877022.html
-
I say it this way... wanna get rid of global warming? Get rid of this....
(http://stardate.org/images/gallery/sun5.jpg)
Even Venus and Mars has global warming going on now.... anybody that buys into this "man made global warming" bullshit is either a liar or a sucker.
-
I'm a Meteorologist,
I forgot about that. Dude, you SO have a job when you ETS or retire..if you continue on with your studies.
http://www.nbcaugusta.com/about/personalities/weatherbios/877022.html
I'm shooting for a degree in Broadcast Meteorology myself. I hope to finish it up during my next tour. I figure with that, and 20 years forecasting experience in the Air Force, I'll have no problem landing a job.
-
I say it this way... wanna get rid of global warming? Get rid of this....
(http://stardate.org/images/gallery/sun5.jpg)
As I pointed out in another thread, the sun has been ruled out as the primary culprit behind climate change. Solar irradiance has been more or less constant since 1948.
Even Venus and Mars has global warming going on now.... anybody that buys into this "man made global warming" bullshit is either a liar or a sucker.
That planets go through natural warming cycles is not disputed by scientists. What scientists believe is going on now is either a natural warming cycle being significantly augmented by human activity or a warming cycle being caused mostly by human activity and augmented by natural factors.
-
I'm shooting for a degree in Broadcast Meteorology myself. I hope to finish it up during my next tour. I figure with that, and 20 years forecasting experience in the Air Force, I'll have no problem landing a job.
How cool! Good luck to you.
:cheersmate:
-
I say it this way... wanna get rid of global warming? Get rid of this....
(http://stardate.org/images/gallery/sun5.jpg)
As I pointed out in another thread, the sun has been ruled out as the primary culprit behind climate change. Solar irradiance has been more or less constant since 1948.
Even Venus and Mars has global warming going on now.... anybody that buys into this "man made global warming" bullshit is either a liar or a sucker.
That planets go through natural warming cycles is not disputed by scientists. What scientists believe is going on now is either a natural warming cycle being significantly augmented by human activity or a warming cycle being caused mostly by human activity and augmented by natural factors.
So how many humans are on Mars and Venus...causing those "warming cycles"? :whatever:
-
So how many humans are on Mars and Venus...causing those "warming cycles"? :whatever:
A little bit about warming on Mars...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
Global warming on Mars?
Filed under: FAQ Climate modelling Sun-earth connections Climate Science— group @ 11:21 AM - ()
Guest contribution by Steinn Sigurdsson.
Global warming on Mars?
Filed under: FAQ Climate modelling Sun-earth connections Climate Science— group @ 11:21 AM - ()
Guest contribution by Steinn Sigurdsson.
Recently, there have been some suggestions that "global warming" has been observed on Mars (e.g. here). These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a "global" change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data.
A couple of basic issues first : the Martian year is about 2 Earth years (687 days). Currently it is late winter in Mars's northern hemisphere, so late summer in the southern hemisphere. Martian eccentricity is about 0.1 - over 5 times larger than Earth's, so the insolation (INcoming SOLar radiATION) variation over the orbit is substantial, and contributes significantly more to seasonality than on the Earth, although Mars's obliquity (the angle of its spin axis to the orbital plane) still dominates the seasons. The alignment of obliquity and eccentricity due to precession is a much stronger effect than for the Earth, leading to "great" summers and winters on time scales of tens of thousands of years (the precessional period is 170,000 years). Since Mars has no oceans and a thin atmosphere, the thermal inertia is low, and Martian climate is easily perturbed by external influences, including solar variations. However, solar irradiance is now well measured by satellite and has been declining slightly over the last few years as it moves towards a solar minimum.
...
Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing. There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth…
...
The warming on Mars is, of course, natural, but it cannot be attributed to the sun. Some research suggests that dust storms are the cause of warming on Mars...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html
-
The atmosphere if a ungodly huge engine. Unless you where to honestly spend a long time studying it, I find it doubtful that you could truly grasp just how complex, and powerful it is. We can't create models that can give you any serious accuracy more then 7 days out, yet we're supposed to trust models that map this entire engine for the next century? I'm sorry, but thats a ******* joke.
We can predict with certainty that spring is coming and that it will be followed by summer, fall, and winter and that the cycle will repeat, can we not? As a scientist, you must know that climate, while difficult to predict, is much easier to predict than weather. The argument that difficulties in weather prediction apply to climate prediction doesn't work because climate is not as chaotic a system as weather.
-
The atmosphere if a ungodly huge engine. Unless you where to honestly spend a long time studying it, I find it doubtful that you could truly grasp just how complex, and powerful it is. We can't create models that can give you any serious accuracy more then 7 days out, yet we're supposed to trust models that map this entire engine for the next century? I'm sorry, but thats a ******* joke.
We can predict with certainty that spring is coming and that it will be followed by summer, fall, and winter and that the cycle will repeat, can we not? As a scientist, you must know that climate, while difficult to predict, is much easier to predict than weather. The argument that difficulties in weather prediction apply to climate prediction doesn't work because climate is not as chaotic a system as weather.
Talk about false analogies.
You cannot say that AGW is as certain as the passing of seasons. At best climate change can be based on past history. As human industrialization is merely 100 of the last 10 million years your comparative database is miniscule and would barely suffice as a single anecdote in a larger statistical field.
-
You cannot say that AGW is as certain as the passing of seasons. At best climate change can be based on past history. As human industrialization is merely 100 of the last 10 million years your comparative database is miniscule and would barely suffice as a single anecdote in a larger statistical field.
Borehole data provides a temperature record for the past 500 years...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/borehole/index.html
And, proxy data provides a temperature record for the past 1000 years...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html
Pretty interesting stuff.
-
Congrats...you've expanded the database to cover .01% of the last 10 million years.
-
Congrats...you've expanded the database to cover .01% of the last 10 million years.
...and he thinks the sun does not affect weather on Mars. :rotf:
-
Congrats...you've expanded the database to cover .01% of the last 10 million years.
...and he thinks the sun does not affect weather on Mars. :rotf:
Of course not! It's all of the SUV's on Earth!!!
-
...and he thinks the sun does not affect weather on Mars. :rotf:
I haven't argued that the sun does not affect Mars. Obviously, the sun affects all the planets. What I did argue is that the rise in temperatures on Mars is due to dust storms and not due to fluctuations in solar irradiance.
If the sun were the culprit behind global warming, then scientists could observe proportional changes in temperature on all the planets and the mystery would be solved.
-
...and he thinks the sun does not affect weather on Mars. :rotf:
I haven't argued that the sun does not affect Mars. Obviously, the sun affects all the planets. What I did argue is that the rise in temperatures on Mars is due to dust storms and not due to fluctuations in solar irradiance.
...because of course the sun could never have any effect on dust storms. :whatever:
If the sun were the culprit behind global warming, then scientists could observe proportional changes in temperature on all the planets and the mystery would be solved.
...and we all know that "scientists" fully understand everything about the sun and how it affects each planet in detail. :whatever:
:lmao:
-
...and we all know that "scientists" fully understand everything about the sun and how it affects each planet in detail.
Well, okay... If you have the answers, then feel free to explain how solar irradiance, which has been more or less constant if not decreasing since the late 1940s, is causing increasing temperatures on Earth.
-
...and we all know that "scientists" fully understand everything about the sun and how it affects each planet in detail.
Well, okay... If you have the answers, then feel free to explain how solar irradiance, which has been more or less constant if not decreasing since the late 1940s, is causing increasing temperatures on Earth.
Here we go again with the negative proof. Your assertions have all been shot down, and you still have not proven that mankind is responsible for gw. Find someone who is unbiased to prove your claim.
-
...and we all know that "scientists" fully understand everything about the sun and how it affects each planet in detail.
Well, okay... If you have the answers, then feel free to explain how solar irradiance, which has been more or less constant if not decreasing since the late 1940s, is causing increasing temperatures on Earth.
Seeing as this thread is about what AGW means in practical terms, i.e. laws and taxes; the question to you is:
Should AGW be argued with the a degree of faith sufficient to impose alterations on peoples' lives and livelihoods?
So far, even by your own admissions, the evidence does not support such measures.
To expand on this I would ask:
If you truly seek further scientific exposition before calling for demands on people's rights to self-governance and economic freedom what about all the bodies seeking to turn AGW into a political blugeon? Should they be tolerated, disavowed, appeased?
-
LONDON (Reuters) - The patio heaters warming drinkers and diners on the pavements of northern Europe are also warming the planet's climate and should be banned, according to a European Parliament report that could be adopted on Thursday.
Environmentalists argue that heaters not only pump heat directly into the atmosphere but also climate-damaging CO2, while owners of pubs and bars say they need them to help retain customers driven outside by smoking bans.
"Patio heaters are scandalous because they are burning fossil fuels in the open sky, so producing vast quantities of CO2 with very little heat benefit," said European parliamentarian Fiona Hall, who wrote the report criticizing the pace of energy reforms in Europe.
"We urge the Commission to set a timetable for completely taking off the market some appliances that are intrinsically inefficient, such as patio heaters," she added.
The report will not lead directly to legislation, but it seeks to guide the European Commission on parliamentarians' priorities.
Any ban would be fiercely opposed by UK pub owners, whose businesses suffered after a smoking ban last year and are now struggling with weakening consumer spending and rising costs.
The heaters are also popular in many other European countries.
"It's ironic this comes at a time when we've all invested heavily in slightly heated areas after the government banned smoking," said Giles Thorley, Chief Executive of Britain's biggest pubs owner Punch Taverns, which has around 8,400 venues.
-
LONDON (Reuters) - The patio heaters warming drinkers and diners on the pavements of northern Europe are also warming the planet's climate and should be banned, according to a European Parliament report that could be adopted on Thursday.
Environmentalists argue that heaters not only pump heat directly into the atmosphere but also climate-damaging CO2, while owners of pubs and bars say they need them to help retain customers driven outside by smoking bans.
"Patio heaters are scandalous because they are burning fossil fuels in the open sky, so producing vast quantities of CO2 with very little heat benefit," said European parliamentarian Fiona Hall, who wrote the report criticizing the pace of energy reforms in Europe.
"We urge the Commission to set a timetable for completely taking off the market some appliances that are intrinsically inefficient, such as patio heaters," she added.
The report will not lead directly to legislation, but it seeks to guide the European Commission on parliamentarians' priorities.
Any ban would be fiercely opposed by UK pub owners, whose businesses suffered after a smoking ban last year and are now struggling with weakening consumer spending and rising costs.
The heaters are also popular in many other European countries.
"It's ironic this comes at a time when we've all invested heavily in slightly heated areas after the government banned smoking," said Giles Thorley, Chief Executive of Britain's biggest pubs owner Punch Taverns, which has around 8,400 venues.
This just stupid. TNO, did you suggest this? It is right up your intelligence-level alley.
-
Here we go again with the negative proof. Your assertions have all been shot down, and you still have not proven that mankind is responsible for gw. Find someone who is unbiased to prove your claim.
I'm not asking you to disprove something. I'm asking you to explain why you think that solar irradiance, which has been constant during observed temperature increases on Earth in the past few decades, is causing global warming. I'm asking you for positive proof, not negative proof.
-
Here we go again with the negative proof. Your assertions have all been shot down, and you still have not proven that mankind is responsible for gw. Find someone who is unbiased to prove your claim.
I'm not asking you to disprove something. I'm asking you to explain why you think that solar irradiance, which has been constant during observed temperature increases on Earth in the past few decades, is causing global warming. I'm asking you for positive proof, not negative proof.
You keep missing that part.
-
Forgive me for intruding, but I heard the phrase "consensus" implied earlier in this thread......as applied to the AGW myth.
As a scientist, I can assure you that there is no "consensus" in real science......
Further, as a scientist, if I cannot prove my premise beyond peer review, either through empirical math, or absolutely repeatable experimentation, it is, and will always be simply an OPINION.....
Reasonable people (and countries) simply do not base public policy on the opinions of scientists, regardless of how numerous (or boisterous) they may be, particularly if the proposed changes to public policy involve the potential to disrupt a nations' economy, or materially change the lifestyles of its population.
Therefore, in the absence of any definitive, repeatable or mathmatical proof of the existance of AGW, absent the political motives of its proponents, it remains just so much conjecture......
Conjecture can never form the basis for public policy.
doc
-
Forgive me for intruding, but I heard the phrase "consensus" implied earlier in this thread......as applied to the AGW myth.
As a scientist, I can assure you that there is no "consensus" in real science......
Correct... As Real Climate points out, science does not depend on concensus...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=86
Scientists are not in concensus on the theory of anthropogenic global warming, but no one can deny that it is a widely accepted theory in scientific circles and particularly in scientific circles which have studied global warming.
Further, as a scientist, if I cannot prove my premise beyond peer review, either through empirical math, or absolutely repeatable experimentation, it is, and will always be simply an OPINION.....
Reasonable people (and countries) simply do not base public policy on the opinions of scientists, regardless of how numerous (or boisterous) they may be, particularly if the proposed changes to public policy involve the potential to disrupt a nations' economy, or materially change the lifestyles of its population.
Right. I agree. Scientists have all sorts of opinions on all sorts of things. On the issue of global warming, we should give the most consideration to the opinions of scientists who have studied it in a professional capacity.
Therefore, in the absence of any definitive, repeatable or mathmatical proof of the existance of AGW, absent the political motives of its proponents, it remains just so much conjecture......
Conjecture can never form the basis for public policy.
The theory of AGW is not conjecture. Numerous peer reviewed studies have been done on global warming and most of them support the idea that mankind is the main cause of it.
-
The theory of AGW is not conjecture. Numerous peer reviewed studies have been done on global warming and most of them support the idea that mankind is the main cause of it.
Horsecrap!
Name ONE.......
I read a lot of scientific journals, and I have yet to read anything that is not based on "computer models", and speculative assumptions.....
The earth's ecosystem is FAR TOO COMPLEX to be sucessfully modeled on today's computers......they only generate assumptions.....assumptions are not definitive science. These assumptions only point to the need for decades more study, with vastly improved input and processing capability
Perhaps in the coming era of quantum computers we will have the capability to approach modeling on the most simplistic basis, but today we do not.
You have succumbed to the "new religion of the athiest left".....when those whose intellect will not allow them the capability to embrace real religion, must embrace a "faith-based concept". Unfortunately it is intellectually bankrupt.
As I have learned, arguing with a "true believer" in the myth of AGW would approach the futility of you attempting to convince me to abandon my Christianity.......
I accept my religion on "faith", and you accept AGW on the same basis, regardless of how many convoluted pseudoscientific arguments you attempt to wrap around the discussion.
Since it is a free country, and you do have freedom of religion, I certtainly would be the last to begrudge you your "beliefs". However, please don't try to convert me to your "faith", and please leave public policy, and my wallet out of your "worship".
doc
-
Horsecrap!
Name ONE.......
I read a lot of scientific journals, and I have yet to read anything that is not based on "computer models", and speculative assumptions.....
I'm not sure I follow what you're arguing. Are you denying that numerous peer reviewed studies support the theory of anthropogenic global warming or are you making the argument that science based on computer models isn't science?
The nice thing about computer models of climate is that their accuracy can be checked as time passes. So far, computer models of climate change are holding up nicely when compared to observations of temperature...
(http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/figspm-4.gif)
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm
-
Right. I agree. Scientists have all sorts of opinions on all sorts of things. On the issue of global warming, we should give the most consideration to the opinions of scientists whose paychecks depend on finding it to be "real" and human caused.
There -- fixed it for you. No charge.
-
It's a conspiracy!
Fixed.
:-)
-
I'm not sure I follow what you're arguing. Are you denying that numerous peer reviewed studies support the theory of anthropogenic global warming or are you making the argument that science based on computer models isn't science?
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm
Actually, I'm not arguing (I'm stating factually) .....both concepts......
Computer modeling is not science when it comes to the global ecosystem....it is simply too complex to accurately "model".....to say otherwise is just silly....
Studies that support the theory are conjecture and opinion, they are not facts......
AGW is not really a "theory" in the strictest scientific sense, as it contains no repeatable observibility......
As I stated earlier, it is a "religion" which must be accepted on faith.
doc
-
The nice thing about computer models of climate is that their accuracy can be checked as time passes. So far, computer models of climate change are holding up nicely when compared to observations of temperature...
Well.....get back to me when you have another couple of centuries of data.....
doc
-
It's a conspiracy!
Fixed.
:-)
Not per se. Just a lot of people who gain a lot of power and wealth by an itty bitty exaggeration.
-
Actually, I'm not arguing (I'm stating factually) .....both concepts......
Computer modeling is not science when it comes to the global ecosystem....it is simply too complex to accurately "model".....to say otherwise is just silly....
Says you. Try telling physicists or any other scientists who work in fields which rely heavily on modelling that what they're doing is not science.
Studies that support the theory are conjecture and opinion, they are not facts......
AGW is not really a "theory" in the strictest scientific sense, as it contains no repeatable observibility......
Um... If climate model predictions are repeatedly found to be correct, then we have repeatability in climate science.
-
Says you. Try telling physicists or any other scientists that work in areas which rely heavily on modelling that what they're doing is not science.
Studies that support the theory are conjecture and opinion, they are not facts......
AGW is not really a "theory" in the strictest scientific sense, as it contains no repeatable observibility......
Um... If climate modelling is correctly predicting climate over and over again, then we have repeatability in climate science.
Well, since I am a physicist (albeit somewhat obsolete), I can assure you that there are some study systems that can be "computer modeled" with reliability, such as forces acting on a building or other structure, or airflow over a prototype aircraft, but anyone that thinks that the global climate can be accurately "modeled" over any significant period of time is simply talking out of their posterior.....or has an ulterior motive.....
Unless you are totally clueless, you know that the earth is very old, and the climate data that is reliably available dates back only half a century or so, which is a "blink of an eye" in terms of earth science study. Repeatability, in terms of scientific method (for the earth's ecosystem), must span centuries of demonstrated cause and effect. We simply don't have that kind of data....therefore all we have is.......
Conjecture and assumptions.....
doc
-
Unless you are totally clueless, you know that the earth is very old, and the climate data that is reliably available dates back only half a century or so, which is a "blink of an eye" in terms of earth science study. Repeatability, in terms of scientific method (for the earth's ecosystem), must span centuries of demonstrated cause and effect. We simply don't have that kind of data....therefore all we have is.......
Half a century? Borehole analysis alone provides a 500 year record of temperatures...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html
And, proxy data provides a 2000 year record of temperatures...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
-
Interesting what you find when you type in: "NASA computer models" on Newsbusters.....
http://newsbusters.org/search/google?cx=000670030471699741183%3Aydh8bjxaqui&cof=FORID%3A11&query=nasa+computer+models+&form_id=google_cse_results_searchbox_form#1066
-
Interesting what you find when you type in: "NASA computer models" on Newsbusters.....
http://newsbusters.org/search/google?cx=000670030471699741183%3Aydh8bjxaqui&cof=FORID%3A11&query=nasa+computer+models+&form_id=google_cse_results_searchbox_form#1066
Newsbusters is a political site, not a scientific site. Relying on political sites for information about scientific matters doesn't make sense to me.
-
Interesting what you find when you type in: "NASA computer models" on Newsbusters.....
http://newsbusters.org/search/google?cx=000670030471699741183%3Aydh8bjxaqui&cof=FORID%3A11&query=nasa+computer+models+&form_id=google_cse_results_searchbox_form#1066
Newsbusters is a political site, not a scientific site. Relying on political sites for information about scientific matters doesn't make sense to me.
What is Al Gore?
Edit: And by the way, Newsbusters is just giving voice to reports written by NASA (you know, those scientists your asking for), since none of the other media outlets would.
Why don't you click on the link and see.
-
What is Al Gore?
Al Gore is an activist. You won't catch me citing him as a source for anything I have to say about AGW.
Edit: And by the way, Newsbusters is just giving voice to reports written by NASA (you know, those scientists your asking for), since none of the other media outlets would.
The reason why people should avoid relying on Newsbusters for information about climate change is the same reason why I avoid relying on Al Gore for information about climate change. Don't get me wrong... I don't mind people relying on highly biased sources to point them to information about important developments in the study of global warming, but I do have a problem with people using information from highly biased sources as the basis for arguments about climate change.
Regarding NASA... NASA has done a lot of great work on global warming and most of it supports the conclusion that it is mostly anthropogenic in nature.
-
TNO, as a Christian skeptic, I'd assume your a supporter of the theory of evolution. And hence forth, you should be familiar with the rise of humanity from the hunters and gatherers of the ice ages, to what we are today.
So let me run a theory by you. At the end of the last ice age, humanity experienced a massive population growth and civilizations began to rise, correct?
Why was this? Well it was due to the use of agriculture. The means of producing large amounts of food in a relatively easy manner meant more mouths could be fed, more free time, more time to think and invent.
So why was agriculture something that popped up at the end of the ice age and not before? Because of all the CO2 that was released with the melting of the polar ice caps.
(http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yearssmall.jpg)
Notice that massive rise with CO2 levels just about 10,000 years ago?
So what I'm asking now is... if so much CO2 was released then in a direct correlation with the rising of the earths temperatures, when mankind had no impact on it at that time.... Then how come the recent spikes in CO2 levels couldn't be associated with the melting of the current ice caps? Why can't it be a symptom of global warming, instead of a cause of?
Temperatures are rising, global ice caps are receding, co2 levels are rising. It's almost just like before... but for some reason its now our fault?
At least so says the people who have invested millions of dollars into the corporations who stand to make money off of it...
-
The nice thing about computer models of climate is that their accuracy can be checked as time passes. So far, computer models of climate change are holding up nicely when compared to observations of temperature...
Well.....get back to me when you have another couple of centuries of data.....
doc
...but wait...it's been "peer reviewed", so it just HAS to be true. [/TNO mode] :whatever:
Of course the fact that all those "peers" stand to gain financially from additional "research". :censored:
-
I say it this way... wanna get rid of global warming? Get rid of this....
(http://stardate.org/images/gallery/sun5.jpg)
As I pointed out in another thread, the sun has been ruled out as the primary culprit behind climate change. Solar irradiance has been more or less constant since 1948.
Even Venus and Mars has global warming going on now.... anybody that buys into this "man made global warming" bullshit is either a liar or a sucker.
That planets go through natural warming cycles is not disputed by scientists. What scientists believe is going on now is either a natural warming cycle being significantly augmented by human activity or a warming cycle being caused mostly by human activity and augmented by natural factors.
Jesus Christ.....
I tell ya what. You believe in global warming? Guess what? You might be lucky! Just post all your credit card numbers, and if one of them comes up in the lotto, you win a prize!!!
:jerkit:
-
Those who blame global warming on humans have never considered that changes in the earth's orbit effect climate.
http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm
-
I say it this way... wanna get rid of global warming? Get rid of this....
(http://stardate.org/images/gallery/sun5.jpg)
As I pointed out in another thread, the sun has been ruled out as the primary culprit behind climate change. Solar irradiance has been more or less constant since 1948.
Even Venus and Mars has global warming going on now.... anybody that buys into this "man made global warming" bullshit is either a liar or a sucker.
That planets go through natural warming cycles is not disputed by scientists. What scientists believe is going on now is either a natural warming cycle being significantly augmented by human activity or a warming cycle being caused mostly by human activity and augmented by natural factors.
Jesus Christ.....
I tell ya what. You believe in global warming? Guess what? You might be lucky! Just post all your credit card numbers, and if one of them comes up in the lotto, you win a prize!!!
:jerkit:
He believes in globalwarming but not Jesus Christ. :loser:
-
What is Al Gore?
Al Gore is an activist. You won't catch me citing him as a source for anything I have to say about AGW.
Edit: And by the way, Newsbusters is just giving voice to reports written by NASA (you know, those scientists your asking for), since none of the other media outlets would.
The reason why people should avoid relying on Newsbusters for information about climate change is the same reason why I avoid relying on Al Gore for information about climate change. Don't get me wrong... I don't mind people relying on highly biased sources to point them to information about important developments in the study of global warming, but I do have a problem with people using information from highly biased sources as the basis for arguments about climate change.
Regarding NASA... NASA has done a lot of great work on global warming and most of it supports the conclusion that it is mostly anthropogenic in nature.
You clearly didn't read the links. Or grasp the concept of Newsbusters. And you assume that "people are relying on them" in lieu of going straight to the source. Again, you should spend some time checking the links to get the full story.
-
Sadly, peer-reviewed science, and 'Scientific consensus' follows the Benjamins. When there is grant money to study something, that thing will be found. Let's think back to 1937 or so, when the heretofore highly-respected anthropologists and geneticists of Germany were producing widely-accepted papers finding racial superiority based on racial (or pseudo-racial) differences; that didn't actually turn out so well, as I recall, and in calmer times without the impetus of government support their conclusions didn't stand the test of time.
I believe TVDoc is on the right track in discussing global climate modeling; 'repeatability' in this context should probably be regarded as 'predictive value' since we don't have a control and experimental planet to screw around with. So far the models aren't old enough, sophistciated enough, or with any track record whatsoever to convince anyone lacking blind faith in AGW of their validity. Any dingdong can gen up a 'model' that accounts for the data set to date, and base it on coincident but causally-unrelated indicators; only the successful prediction of future activity will (provisionally) demonstrate that it is based on causally-relevant variables.
From my admittedly less-than-comprehensive reading on the global climate models, I have gleaned that they are really rather primitive oversimplifications, and wholly omit several factors that would have to be taken into account for them to have any legitimate predictive value.
-
So let me run a theory by you. At the end of the last ice age, humanity experienced a massive population growth and civilizations began to rise, correct?
Why was this? Well it was due to the use of agriculture. The means of producing large amounts of food in a relatively easy manner meant more mouths could be fed, more free time, more time to think and invent.
So why was agriculture something that popped up at the end of the ice age and not before? Because of all the CO2 that was released with the melting of the polar ice caps.
(http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yearssmall.jpg)
Notice that massive rise with CO2 levels just about 10,000 years ago?
So what I'm asking now is... if so much CO2 was released then in a direct correlation with the rising of the earths temperatures, when mankind had no impact on it at that time.... Then how come the recent spikes in CO2 levels couldn't be associated with the melting of the current ice caps? Why can't it be a symptom of global warming, instead of a cause of?
Temperatures are rising, global ice caps are receding, co2 levels are rising. It's almost just like before... but for some reason its now our fault?
At least so says the people who have invested millions of dollars into the corporations who stand to make money off of it...
Exellent questions.
Okay... First, the resolution of the chart you posted makes reading it a little bit difficult. I think you're misreading where on the chart the really massive increase in CO2 takes place. Please take some time to view a blow up of the chart...
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm
As you can see on the chart, the really massive increase in CO2, as represented by the vertical red line, takes place at 0, which is basically the past few decades.
The following chart gives us more detail about CO2 levels in the past 10,000 years..
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/20000yrfig.htm
As you can see on the chart, CO2 levels have been pretty steady for the past 10,000 years and start to rise sharply about 100 years ago- at the start of the industrial revolution.
How do we know that the CO2 in the atmosphere is ours? By using a process similar to carbon dating, scientists have been able to differentiate between CO2 which results from the burning of fossil fuels and natural CO2. A detailed explanation of how we know that the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the burning of fossil fuels can be found in a post at Real Climate...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
-
He believes in globalwarming but not Jesus Christ. :loser:
I believe that Jesus Christ existed. I don't believe that he was a divine being.
We have no scientific evidence that Christ was divine. We have a lot of scientific evidence that global warming is the result of human activities.
-
...but wait...it's been "peer reviewed", so it just HAS to be true. [/TNO mode] :whatever:
Of course the fact that all those "peers" stand to gain financially from additional "research". :censored:
As I have already stated, I fully acknowledge that all the science which supports the theory of AGW might be wrong. Do you acknowledge that your position on AGW might be wrong?
-
...but wait...it's been "peer reviewed", so it just HAS to be true. [/TNO mode] :whatever:
Of course the fact that all those "peers" stand to gain financially from additional "research". :censored:
As I have already stated, I fully acknowledge that all the science which supports the theory of AGW might be wrong. Do you acknowledge that your position on AGW might be wrong?
isn't the "burden of proof", so to speak, upon the global warming alarmists to prove that (a) the global climate is changing, and (b) the have correctly identified the cause?
my position on AGW is pretty much that the current "trendy" position on AGW is wrong. I really don't have to prove an opposing theory, I just get to punch holes in yours. :-)
-
I might see if 'ole SouthGaEagle wants to join. He does something in this field. He has a B.S. from Mercer and an M.S. from USM, or vice-versa.
-
isn't the "burden of proof", so to speak, upon the global warming alarmists to prove that (a) the global climate is changing, and (b) the have correctly identified the cause?
my position on AGW is pretty much that the current "trendy" position on AGW is wrong. I really don't have to prove an opposing theory, I just get to punch holes in yours. :-)
The best way to punch holes in the theory that global warming is the result of human activity is to prove that it is natural. I haven't seen very strong evidence that the global warming we are experiencing today is natural.
-
I might see if 'ole SouthGaEagle wants to join. He does something in this field. He has a B.S. from Mercer and an M.S. from USM, or vice-versa.
The more the merrier.
-
Just vote for Hillary. She'll fix everything - :whatever:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/bill-we-just-ha.html
"Slow down our economy"?
-
...but wait...it's been "peer reviewed", so it just HAS to be true. [/TNO mode] :whatever:
Of course the fact that all those "peers" stand to gain financially from additional "research". :censored:
As I have already stated, I fully acknowledge that all the science which supports the theory of AGW might be wrong. Do you acknowledge that your position on AGW might be wrong?
The difference is that the wholesale embrace of so-called Human-caused AGW is costing money and liberty AS WE SPEAK. It is a dangerous hypothesis.
-
isn't the "burden of proof", so to speak, upon the global warming alarmists to prove that (a) the global climate is changing, and (b) the have correctly identified the cause?
my position on AGW is pretty much that the current "trendy" position on AGW is wrong. I really don't have to prove an opposing theory, I just get to punch holes in yours. :-)
The best way to punch holes in the theory that global warming is the result of human activity is to prove that it is natural. I haven't seen very strong evidence that the global warming we are experiencing today is natural.
lunacy. I can disprove a theory without having to present and prove an opposing theory. :-)
(I inadvertently edited your post instead of quoting it. sorry. :thatsright: I took my edit out)
-
The difference is that the wholesale embrace of so-called Human-caused AGW is costing money and liberty AS WE SPEAK. It is a dangerous hypothesis.
Bingo!
I, for one would likely concede the issue that some warming is occurring, seems to me that one degree Celsius since the beginning of the 20th century has been discussed. However, the data collected earlier than the advent of temperature measurements via wide-area satellite infrared spectronomy is suspect from the perspective of accuracy. Until this technology was initiated, measurements were largely subjective, and as we are dealing with fractional increments of a degree over decades, I cannot accept that the data recorded (with mercury column thermometers) in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries are particularly convincing scientifically, when we are discussing such small changes, over relatively long periods of time.
The real danger occues when I hear supposed "men of science" stating that "the debate over AGW is over", and calling all dissenters essentially heretics. Hell, in my area of physics, we are STILL debating many of Einstein's findings, and occasionally we will discuss the nuances of "Newtonian physics" (who, by the way, was wrong in a number of areas, after being held as a minor diety in physical science for nearly a century)....
The debate in real science is NEVER over.......
This rush to judgement is further complicated by politicians who see this pseudo-science as an opportunity to wrest more control from the citizens by imposing draconian measures (and raising taxes) to limit emissions levels on various perfectly natural substances. Then, as mentioned by another poster, these same politicians commission "study grants" to more scientists to find more "evidence" to support the original premise, and EVERY scientist knows that if you begin any study with a preconcieved goal, the bias (regardless how slight) injected by this frontloading will render any result meaningless. This creates a masturbatory circle that is clearly not science, but purely politics, aided by a large group of grant-seeking academics waiting in line to jump on the funding band wagon. This is exactly where we are in the AGW discussion today.
There is, however, a ray of sunshine in this "doom shouting" scenario.....scientists without a vested interest are beginning to "push back", and are starting to inject some sanity into the discussion. The interest groups and politicians that wanted to regulate everything from power plants to cow farts are beginning to feel some heat from their constituants when the "real costs" of their proposed regulations are finally disclosed.
Therefore, as a "practical matter", this scientist can only conclude the following.........
.......The earth may, in fact, be warming slightly, as it has countless times in the past.....
.......There is NO convincing evidence that this warming is the result of any human activity, in fact, temperature measurements more than fifty years old would not meet any sort of scientific accuracy test vis-a-vis establishment of a "global mean temperature" for that era......therefore any and all "computer models" based on such data are fatally flawed, and not to be considered valid for policy-making purposes.
.......Any scientist or politician that states that their is no further need to debate AGW should be immediately dismissed as a zealot......
.......Any regulatory action regarding GW should be delayed for at least the next five decades, at minimum.......until vastly improved computing capability and data avalibility are manifest.....
In the most practical terms this is where the subject needs to be couched........Liberals are free to worship "Gia" all they want, however, the subject is not really a matter of public policy for any thinking individual......
doc
-
isn't the "burden of proof", so to speak, upon the global warming alarmists to prove that (a) the global climate is changing, and (b) the have correctly identified the cause?
my position on AGW is pretty much that the current "trendy" position on AGW is wrong. I really don't have to prove an opposing theory, I just get to punch holes in yours. :-)
The best way to punch holes in the theory that global warming is the result of human activity is to prove that it is natural. I haven't seen very strong evidence that the global warming we are experiencing today is natural.
lunacy. I can disprove a theory without having to present and prove an opposing theory. :-)
(I inadvertently edited your post instead of quoting it. sorry. :thatsright: I took my edit out)
With great power comes great responsibility (LOL)
-
The difference is that the wholesale embrace of so-called Human-caused AGW is costing money and liberty AS WE SPEAK. It is a dangerous hypothesis.
Bingo!
I, for one would likely concede the issue that some warming is occurring, seems to me that one degree Celsius since the beginning of the 20th century has been discussed. However, the data collected earlier than the advent of temperature measurements via wide-area satellite infrared spectronomy is suspect from the perspective of accuracy. Until this technology was initiated, measurements were largely subjective, and as we are dealing with fractional increments of a degree over decades, I cannot accept that the data recorded (with mercury column thermometers) in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries are particularly convincing scientifically, when we are discussing such small changes, over relatively long periods of time.
The real danger occues when I hear supposed "men of science" stating that "the debate over AGW is over", and calling all dissenters essentially heretics. Hell, in my area of physics, we are STILL debating many of Einstein's findings, and occasionally we will discuss the nuances of "Newtonian physics" (who, by the way, was wrong in a number of areas, after being held as a minor diety in physical science for nearly a century)....
The debate in real science is NEVER over.......
This rush to judgement is further complicated by politicians who see this pseudo-science as an opportunity to wrest more control from the citizens by imposing draconian measures (and raising taxes) to limit emissions levels on various perfectly natural substances. Then, as mentioned by another poster, these same politicians commission "study grants" to more scientists to find more "evidence" to support the original premise, and EVERY scientist knows that if you begin any study with a preconcieved goal, the bias (regardless how slight) injected by this frontloading will render any result meaningless. This creates a masturbatory circle that is clearly not science, but purely politics, aided by a large group of grant-seeking academics waiting in line to jump on the funding band wagon. This is exactly where we are in the AGW discussion today.
There is, however, a ray of sunshine in this "doom shouting" scenario.....scientists without a vested interest are beginning to "push back", and are starting to inject some sanity into the discussion. The interest groups and politicians that wanted to regulate everything from power plants to cow farts are beginning to feel some heat from their constituants when the "real costs" of their proposed regulations are finally disclosed.
Therefore, as a "practical matter", this scientist can only conclude the following.........
.......The earth may, in fact, be warming slightly, as it has countless times in the past.....
.......There is NO convincing evidence that this warming is the result of any human activity, in fact, temperature measurements more than fifty years old would not meet any sort of scientific accuracy test vis-a-vis establishment of a "global mean temperature" for that era......therefore any and all "computer models" based on such data are fatally flawed, and not to be considered valid for policy-making purposes.
.......Any scientist or politician that states that their is no further need to debate AGW should be immediately dismissed as a zealot......
.......Any regulatory action regarding GW should be delayed for at least the next five decades, at minimum.......until vastly improved computing capability and data avalibility are manifest.....
In the most practical terms this is where the subject needs to be couched........Liberals are free to worship "Gia" all they want, however, the subject is not really a matter of public policy for any thinking individual......
doc
Great post doc -- s/b required reading for moonbats -- at least the resident ones.
(*clap clap clap*)
-
isn't the "burden of proof", so to speak, upon the global warming alarmists to prove that (a) the global climate is changing, and (b) the have correctly identified the cause?
my position on AGW is pretty much that the current "trendy" position on AGW is wrong. I really don't have to prove an opposing theory, I just get to punch holes in yours. :-)
The best way to punch holes in the theory that global warming is the result of human activity is to prove that it is natural. I haven't seen very strong evidence that the global warming we are experiencing today is natural.
That is a non-sequitur. It is always the onus of the proposition to provide proof. There is no onus to provide an alternative.
-
Great post doc -- s/b required reading for moonbats -- at least the resident ones.
(*clap clap clap*)
(....takes bow.....exits stage right.....)
-
That was great TVDOC. Thanks!
-
I, for one would likely concede the issue that some warming is occurring, seems to me that one degree Celsius since the beginning of the 20th century has been discussed. However, the data collected earlier than the advent of temperature measurements via wide-area satellite infrared spectronomy is suspect from the perspective of accuracy. Until this technology was initiated, measurements were largely subjective, and as we are dealing with fractional increments of a degree over decades, I cannot accept that the data recorded (with mercury column thermometers) in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries are particularly convincing scientifically, when we are discussing such small changes, over relatively long periods of time.
You might be a little bit behind the curve on climate science. The temperature data scientists are using to model climate is not derived from historical notes in books but rather from a variety of sources such as...
Radiosondes- http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/angell.html
Borehole analysis- http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html
Proxy reconstructions- http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
Permafrost melt- http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg18725124.500.html
Satellite measurements- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
The real danger occues when I hear supposed "men of science" stating that "the debate over AGW is over", and calling all dissenters essentially heretics. Hell, in my area of physics, we are STILL debating many of Einstein's findings, and occasionally we will discuss the nuances of "Newtonian physics" (who, by the way, was wrong in a number of areas, after being held as a minor diety in physical science for nearly a century)....
The debate in real science is NEVER over.......
So, you acknowledge that the theory that mankind is the main source of global warming might be right?
.......The earth may, in fact, be warming slightly, as it has countless times in the past.....
That the Earth is warming is science fact.
There is NO convincing evidence that this warming is the result of any human activity, in fact, temperature measurements more than fifty years old would not meet any sort of scientific accuracy test vis-a-vis establishment of a "global mean temperature" for that era......therefore any and all "computer models" based on such data are fatally flawed, and not to be considered valid for policy-making purposes.
Huh? I thought you said that the debate is never over?
Anyway, the most celebrated scientific institutions in the world say you're probably wrong about climate change, so I hope you won't be offended if I go with their opinions.
-
Anyway, the most celebrated scientific institutions in the world say you're probably wrong about climate change, so I hope you won't be offended if I go with their opinions.
Not with my ****ing wallet and liberty you won't.
-
TNO....I grow weary of you offering the same tired arguments that remain as fallacious now as they were in the beginning. The definition of insanity (liberalism paraphrased) is repeating the same stuff over and over, expecting different results.
The bottom line is that your arguments and supporting data are agenda motivated, and largely junk science......for someone that writes in an intelligent manner, such as you do, I find it perplexing that you seem incapable of grasping such a non-nuanced rebuttal. You seem to think that quoting me out of context and putting words in my mouth are successful discussion tactics.
I simply find it a waste of time to continue a discussion with a person that thinks establishing a mean global temperature by means of analyzing ice and sedimentary core samples (which couldn't establish any conclusion within a +/- 5 Degree Celsius optimally), among other methods, as accurate enough to drive a historical conclusion for determining anything substantive. The scientific method REQUIRES that if the underlying data cannot be precisely correlated over the subject period, your result will simply be an "assumption", not a conclusion......a true scientist can simply NOT "mix and match" the sources of their data and arrive at anything meaningful........which is why the entire AGW discussion is specious, because in order to even ARRIVE at such a conclusion (as AGW), you are required to mix and match the source of the data.
Let me spell it out for you in a manner that even an idiot could understand........when you come to me with a data set that has been determined over time using the same methodology (preferably satellite infrared spectronomy, which is hyper accurate)....and this data suggests that the global "average" temperature is rising......THEN I WILL LISTEN TO YOU!! However when you present me with "studies" that are based on data which are arrived at by DOZENS of different sampling methods, and ask me to support a conclusion based on said data, I will simply mock both you and your sources.
You seem to have a "thirst for knowledge" in the area of science, so my suggestion would be that you actually STUDY some science academically (instead of on the internet), then actually go out and DO some scientific research (as I have), and after a while you might grasp the reason why AGW is essentially bull feces.
To summarize this entire exchange for you.......I'm not attacking all of your proffered "studies" and "environmental research"....I'm simply stating that because the underlying data cannot be correlated, the results are "assumptions", not "theories", or "facts" or even "conclusions".....and no intelligent person would base public policy on an assumption.
Until then, I'll let you annoy someone else.....
PS Wikipedia is not a credible source
doc
-
He believes in globalwarming but not Jesus Christ. :loser:
I believe that Jesus Christ existed. I don't believe that he was a divine being.
We have no scientific evidence that Christ was divine. We have a lot of scientific evidence that global warming is the result of human activities.
So if you can't prove it through "science", it must be false? And yes, we've already discussed and busted your "scientific evidence".
Still waiting for all that unbiased proof that gw is man's fault.
Gonna be a looooong wait.
-
Exellent questions.
Okay... First, the resolution of the chart you posted makes reading it a little bit difficult. I think you're misreading where on the chart the really massive increase in CO2 takes place. Please take some time to view a blow up of the chart...
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm
As you can see on the chart, the really massive increase in CO2, as represented by the vertical red line, takes place at 0, which is basically the past few decades.
The following chart gives us more detail about CO2 levels in the past 10,000 years..
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/20000yrfig.htm
As you can see on the chart, CO2 levels have been pretty steady for the past 10,000 years and start to rise sharply about 100 years ago- at the start of the industrial revolution.
How do we know that the CO2 in the atmosphere is ours? By using a process similar to carbon dating, scientists have been able to differentiate between CO2 which results from the burning of fossil fuels and natural CO2. A detailed explanation of how we know that the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the burning of fossil fuels can be found in a post at Real Climate...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
You know the CO2 estimates used by the global warming alarmists are most likely wrong? I'm referring to the pre-industrial age estimates of 280PPM.
Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are at record highs according to a new report from the UN’s World Meteorological Organization. The implication is that manmade greenhouse gas emissions and therefore, global warming, are spiraling out of control.
But the report is misleading to the extent it claims that the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) level – reported by the WMO to be 377 parts per million (ppm) in 2004 – is 35 percent higher now than during pre-industrial times when the CO2 level allegedly was around 280 ppm.
While there’s no dispute concerning the current CO2 level, there is plenty of room to dispute the WMO’s 280 ppm-estimate for pre-industrial atmospheric CO2, according to March 2004 testimony before the U.S. Senate by Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, a senior Polish scientist who has spent 40 years studying glaciers in order to reconstruct the history of human impact on the global atmosphere.
Atmospheric CO2 can be measured directly by air sampling or estimated indirectly by, for example, studying air trapped in ice cores drilled from glaciers. Direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 taken by scientists during the 19th century – beginning around 1810 – ranged from about 250 ppm to 550 ppm, with an average value of 335 ppm, according to Dr. Jaworowski.
Global warming alarmists, however, prefer to estimate pre-industrial CO2 indirectly by means of ice cores, from which they derive the much lower pre-industrial revolution estimate of 280 ppm. The lower estimate makes industrial-era greenhouse gas emissions appear to be dramatically higher.
But Dr. Jaworowski says that the ice core-based CO2 estimates are unreliable.
First, ice core-based CO2 estimates vary even more than the 19th century direct measurements, generally ranging from 160 ppm to about 700 ppm with some readings as high as 2,450 ppm. But because the higher estimates are politically incorrect – that is, they don’t support the notion of manmade global warming – Dr. Jaworowski says they haven’t been mentioned in the published scientific literature since the mid-1980s when global warming fever began to spread.
The official “rationale†for ignoring the higher ice core readings is that they supposedly have been “contaminated†by the contemporary atmosphere – but it’s an excuse that actually undermines the validity of all ice cored-based measurements. Ice core data do get contaminated, according to Dr. Jaworowski, but in the opposite direction.
In order for ice core data to be considered reliable, the ice matrix must be a closed system – that is, once air is trapped in ice it should remain unchanged. But Dr. Jaworowski says that glaciers aren’t closed systems. Liquid water is present even in the coldest Antarctic ice (-73 degrees Centigrade).
“More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusion in polar ice,†Dr. Jaworowski told Senators.
The act of drilling for ice core samples further alters the composition of the trapped air. As deep ice is compressed, trapped air bubbles turn into tiny crystals. Drilling decompresses ice cores – causing cracks in the ice and decomposition of the crystals into gases which differentially escape at varying pressures and depths – leading to a net depletion of CO2 in the air trapped in the ice cores, according to Dr. Jaworowski.
“This is why the records of carbon dioxide… in deep polar ice show values lower than in the contemporary atmosphere, even for epochs when the global surface temperature was higher than now,†Dr. Jaworowski testified.
If pre-industrial CO2 levels are in fact closer to the directly measured 19th century average of 335 ppm versus the questionably estimated 280 ppm, then human activity would be correlated with a much smaller increase in atmospheric CO2 levels – which only adds to the confusion over global warming.
Mean global temperature appears to have warmed by about one degree Fahrenheit during the 20th Century. About half that warming occurred prior to 1940, while most of the century’s manmade greenhouse gas emissions occurred after 1940. The global cooling that occurred from 1940 to 1970 – which led some worriers to sound alarms during the mid-1970s about a looming ice age – actually occurred simultaneously with increasing manmade greenhouse gas emissions.
There really are only two certainties in the debate over climate change. First, we really don’t have a sufficient understanding of climatic processes to predict with reasonable certainty the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on climate.
But we do know that mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions – like those required in Europe by the Kyoto Protocol and currently advocated in the U.S. by Sens. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and Jeff Bingman, D-N.M., – will harm the economy by making energy more expensive and less available.
European nations are already choosing to forego global warming alarmism and compliance with Kyoto in favor of economic survival and growth. Let’s hope that message gets through the global warming ice core in which Sens. Domenici and Bingaman seem to be trapped.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188176,00.html
Media source or not, the story is still factual. But basically, if the average is closer to 335ppm then 280, that would mean the rise in the last century would be negligible.
That is why the Hockey Stick graph has been debunked and cannot be used. Because the numbers just simply aren't reliable. As much as people may scream that there is, there really is no solid proof yet that there has been a massive rise in CO2 levels over the last 100 years.
-
That is why the Hockey Stick graph has been debunked and cannot be used. Because the numbers just simply aren't reliable. As much as people may scream that there is, there really is no solid proof yet that there has been a massive rise in CO2 levels over the last 100 years.
This is exactly what I've been attempting to get across to this numbskull TNO for the past two days......the only data that can be used to support the concept of AGW is tainted, and of questionable use in arriving at any meaningful conclusions....
And since there is no absolute data.......there can never be a conclusion.......
doc
-
I simply find it a waste of time to continue a discussion with a person that thinks establishing a mean global temperature by means of analyzing ice and sedimentary core samples (which couldn't establish any conclusion within a +/- 5 Degree Celsius optimally), among other methods, as accurate enough to drive a historical conclusion for determining anything substantive. The scientific method REQUIRES that if the underlying data cannot be precisely correlated over the subject period, your result will simply be an "assumption", not a conclusion......a true scientist can simply NOT "mix and match" the sources of their data and arrive at anything meaningful........which is why the entire AGW discussion is specious, because in order to even ARRIVE at such a conclusion (as AGW), you are required to mix and match the source of the data.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what scientists who are studying global warming are trying to do. Scientists are not trying to establish an absolute record of temperatures. They are trying to identify trends in the climate record. The kind of accuracy provided by satellite readings is nice but is not required to build an accurate reconstruction of climate spanning decades or centuries.
However when you present me with "studies" that are based on data which are arrived at by DOZENS of different sampling methods, and ask me to support a conclusion based on said data, I will simply mock both you and your sources.
The fact that scientists using various methods and various sources for data are getting the same results should give you confidence in their conclusions, not doubt. Analyzing data from a variety of sources allows scientists to cross check their conclusions. When constructing a climate record spanning centuries, more data is better than less data.
You seem to have a "thirst for knowledge" in the area of science, so my suggestion would be that you actually STUDY some science academically (instead of on the internet), then actually go out and DO some scientific research (as I have), and after a while you might grasp the reason why AGW is essentially bull feces.
No offense, but... considering that you were, until I got here, under the impression that climate reconstructions are based on thermometer readings taken in the past, I would say that you have more reading to do than I do.
Anyway, our opinions on global warming are irrelevant. We can dismiss each other's opinions all day, but what we cannot dismiss are the opinions of highly respected scientific institutions which have studied global warming and which have come to the conclusion that it is largely the result of human activities.
When you dismiss the idea that global warming is caused by human activities as bullshit, you are doing exactly what you claim zealots on the other side of the argument are doing.
-
This is exactly what I've been attempting to get across to this numbskull TNO for the past two days...
So, now I'm a numbskull. What will I be next? A heretic?
:whatever:
-
This is exactly what I've been attempting to get across to this numbskull TNO for the past two days...
So, now I'm a numbskull. What will I be next? A heretic?
:whatever:
No, just a numbskull. And a ****ing socialist.
-
This is exactly what I've been attempting to get across to this numbskull TNO for the past two days...
So, now I'm a numbskull. What will I be next? A heretic?
:whatever:
If you're the same TNO from Liberal Loser's group.... you're also a creppy ass ****tard. Here, from what ya displayed so far on Global warming (more like Global Whining), either a sucker or a flat out liar.
-
Media source or not, the story is still factual. But basically, if the average is closer to 335ppm then 280, that would mean the rise in the last century would be negligible.
That is why the Hockey Stick graph has been debunked and cannot be used. Because the numbers just simply aren't reliable. As much as people may scream that there is, there really is no solid proof yet that there has been a massive rise in CO2 levels over the last 100 years.
Zbigniew Jaworowski is a physicist whose claims about ice core samples and climate change are not taken seriously by the scientific community. His three most recent papers have been published in 21st Century Science and Technology, a magazine owned by Lyndon LaRouche, who is a crackpot and a convict. I don't think I need to tell anyone that Lyndon LaRouche's publications and websites are not prestigious places for scientific papers to end up in.
A funny story about Jaworowski... Jaworowski believes that ice core samples show that an ice age is imminent. But, when he was challenged to put money on his prediction, he declined. Enough said.
-
So, now I'm a numbskull. What will I be next? A heretic?
:whatever:
OK....Let's assume for sake of discussion that these "assumptions/conclusions" that all of your "unbiased scientists" have postulated are correct......(which I don't)......precisely what steps should governments and citizens take......and exactly to what extent......as a result of acceptance of AGW.
I will reject any condescending generalizations from you, so please give me the exact steps that first the US government should take, in your own preferred order, followed by the exact actions that we, as citizens, should take. each step should include a brief cost/value analysis, and a penalty caveat if you think one necessary.
I would like to truly see your evaluation of what actions and costs, in real dollars, that you would be willing to foist on we citizens as a result of all of this "overwhelming scientific evidence".....
We'll see how much of a heretic you actually are, and if you have the courage to apply "cost" to your convictions.....I suspect that you will dodge the question....
I'm waiting.......
doc
-
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what scientists who are studying global warming are trying to do. Scientists are not trying to establish an absolute record of temperatures. They are trying to identify trends in the climate record. The kind of accuracy provided by satellite readings is nice but is not required to build an accurate reconstruction of climate spanning decades or centuries.
Actually I know exactly what they are trying to do......use pseudoscience to accomplish the political goals of their masters....you could see it as well if you simply "followed the money"...
Oh, and if you are as astute a student of this discussion as you purport yourself to be, you know that in the beginning of this "quest for evidence" these self same scientists were making these ridiculous claims on the basis of "thermometer readings".....at least they were until it was suggested that they couldn't get away with it. So they continue to thrash away in the "search" to find new and better ways to support their predetermined conclusion....
And in actuality, my dismissal of AGW as bullshit, is based on simple logic and scientific method.....unlike your doomshouters and snake-oil salesmen, masquerading as "scientists"....
doc