Inconvenient truths, indeed [Archive]

markus3622

05-25-2006, 10:01 AM

As I said, we knew the oil lobby would come out against the documentary. It raises some points that are interesting, but make logical flaws.

(1) Al Gore pays respect to Roger Revelle, who wrote in an article (3 years after he died apparently) that he was skeptical. However, that article is 13 years old, and secondly, because Gore's interest was piqued by Revelle, the the theory of global warming doesn't depend on Revelle, any more than the theory evolution depends on Darwin

(2) It's difficult to comment on Kilimanjaro until we know what Al Gore actually said. However, several papers have attributed the cause to global warming, and I read the paper quoted, and it doesn't rule out global warming as a cause.

(3) The hockey stick - as discussed before, this is irrelevant to climate change, but although there have been some methodological problems with Mann's study, his findings have been reproduced, a key test in science.

(4) Hurricanes. The IPCC report in 2001 didn't come out and link hurricanes with global warming. Several papers in the subsequent 5 years have. Gore is correct to link the two

(5) Sea level - IPCC reports in 2001 there's been no significant increase in sea levels in the 20th Century. That's a different thing from saying that sea level would not rise in the 21st and beyond. The IPCC report goes on to predict sea level will rise. Again Gore is correct.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/409.htm

(6) Near the end of the film, we learn of ways the United States could reduce emissions of greenhouse gases back to the levels of 1970. OK. Assume the United States accomplishes this lofty goal, would we see any impact on climate?

Basically, this is arguing something over than what Gore argues. Again Gore is correct.

It seems like the movie is doing pretty well, looking at the few fallacies and nitpicking comments suggested by the author here.

Rhino

05-25-2006, 10:33 AM

.......Al Gore pays respect to Roger Revelle, who wrote in an article (3 years after he died apparently) that he was skeptical......The came out in April, 1991. Revelle died on July 15, 1991. Now, math is not my strongest subject, but it appears to me that he died after the article was published.

S. F. Singer, C. Starr, and R. Revelle, “What To Do About Greenhouse
Warming: Look Before You Leap,” Cosmos 1 (1991): 28–33.

Borgia

05-25-2006, 10:47 AM

Dr Robert Balling Jr
TCS Daily
24 May 06

Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" opens around the country this week. In the film Gore pulls together evidence from every corner of the globe to convince us that climate change is happening fast, we are to blame, and if we don't act immediately, our Earth will be all but ruined. However, as you sit through the film, consider the following inconvenient truths:

More (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=052406F)

Balling has received more than $200,000 from coal and oil interests over the past six years. Specific incidences include significant levels of funding since 1989 from the Kuwaiti government, foreign coal and mining corporations and Cyprus Minerals Company (totalling $72,554). (Kuwait has opposed the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The Kuwaiti government paid for a release of Balling's "A Heated Debate" in the Middle East, a project originally funded by the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. The Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Science granted Balling $48,993 and the Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research granted him an undisclosed amount. British Coal Corporation gave him a total of $103,544 and the German Coal Mining Association gave him $81,780 in two separate grants. (Ozone Action, NCPPR directory)

Interestingly enough, Balling agrees global warming is happening:

Balling is a declared 'global warming skeptic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_skeptic)'. However, in Balling and Sen Roy (2005) he writes: there is substantial evidence that a non-solar control has become dominant in recent decades. The buildup of greenhouse gases and/or some other global-scale feedback, such as widespread changes in atmospheric water vapor, emerge as potential explanations for the recent residual warming found in all latitudinal bands.

Borgia

05-25-2006, 10:48 AM

The came out in April, 1991. Revelle died on July 15, 1991. Now, math is not my strongest subject, but it appears to me that he died after the article was published.

S. F. Singer, C. Starr, and R. Revelle, “What To Do About Greenhouse
Warming: Look Before You Leap,” Cosmos 1 (1991): 28–33.

And of course we know that absolutely no research has occurred on global warming between 1991 and today that might further confirm any early hypothesis.

Rhino

05-25-2006, 10:49 AM

Interestingly enough, Balling agrees global warming is happening:Who doesn't?

And, interestingly enough, your quote says "potential explanations". I can't hang my hat on potential. I'd need quite a bit more than that.

Borgia

05-25-2006, 10:53 AM

Who doesn't?

And, interestingly enough, your quote says "potential explanations". I can't hang my hat on potential. I'd need quite a bit more than that.

No, instead you prefer to hang your hat on 1 climatalogist (apid handsomely by energy companies) as compared to the 2500 climate experts who say the casue is human in origin.

Naturalized-Texan

05-25-2006, 10:56 AM

markus & Borg:

Anyone with even the tiniest sense of what is going on in the world should be much more inclined to believe research partly supported by Exxon, et al., with no strings attached, than research sponsored and paid for by the UN for the following reasons:

1) The UN has zero credibility about anything.
2) The UN, through its Commission on Global Governance (CGG), has as its stated goal world government under UN control.
3) The IPCC is wholly under the control of the UN and its conclusions are what the CGG tells it to conclude.
4) Exxon, et al., is investing billions of dollars in research in means to produce alternative fuels.
5) Exxon, et al., is investing billions of dollars in research to reduce emissions.
6) Consequently, Exxon, et al., will make huge profits even if the UN manages to fool the people of the world into believing that we humans can do anything to stop global warming.
7) Exxon has a vested interest in not destroying the American economy based on nothing more than the speculation and supposition by junk scientists beholden to the UN, despite the fact that it will still be profitable no matter what happens.

Bottom line: Exxon, et al., has infinitely more credibility than the UN (IPCC).

Naturalized-Texan

05-25-2006, 11:01 AM

Questions for Al Gore (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=052506C)

Dear Mr. Gore:

I have just seen your new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," about the threat that global warming presents to humanity. I think you did a very good job of explaining global warming theory, and your presentation was effective. Please convey my compliments to your good friend, Laurie David, for a job well done.

As a climate scientist myself -- you might remember me...I'm the one you mistook for your "good friend," UK scientist Phil Jones during my congressional testimony some years back -- I have a few questions that occurred to me while watching the movie.

1) Why did you make it look like hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, floods, droughts, and ice calving off of glaciers and falling into the ocean, are only recent phenomena associated with global warming? You surely know that hurricane experts have been warning congress for many years that the natural cycle in hurricanes would return some day, and that our built-up coastlines were ripe for a disaster (like Katrina, which you highlighted in the movie). And as long as snow continues to fall on glaciers, they will continue to flow downhill toward the sea. Yet you made it look like these things wouldn't happen if it weren't for global warming. Also, since there are virtually no measures of severe weather showing a recent increase, I assume those graphs you showed actually represented damage increases, which are well known to be simply due to greater population and wealth. Is that right?

2) Why did you make it sound like all scientists agree that climate change is manmade and not natural? You mentioned a recent literature review study that supposedly found no peer-reviewed articles that attributed climate change to natural causes (a non-repeatable study which has since been refuted....I have a number of such articles in my office!) You also mentioned how important it is to listen to scientists when they warn us, yet surely you know that almost all past scientific predictions of gloom and doom have been wrong. How can we trust scientists' predictions now?

3) I know you still must feel bad about the last presidential election being stolen from you, but why did you have to make fun of Republican presidents (Reagan; both Bushes) for their views on global warming? The points you made in the movie might have had wider appeal if you did not alienate so many moviegoers in this manner.

{More at the link above.}

Naturalized-Texan

05-25-2006, 11:08 AM

Borg: You are proving that you are as brainwashed as markus by the junk scientists' Big Lie Propaganda about global warming. There is NO scientific evidence, much less, proof, of the claim that global warming is being caused by human activities. That claim is nothing more than a hypothesis based on speculation and supposition.

DoctorDoom

05-25-2006, 11:23 AM

Aw, geez, the Borgtroll is also a global warming expert. :rolleyes:

The reality of global climate change is not disputed at FC. It has been happening for millions of years. The issue is whether humans are in any way responsible for it. The GW wackos simply assume that we are and demand economically disastrous actions to counteract it without a shred of evidence to support their outrageous "science".

Here's your chance to be a hee-row. Every other brain-damaged enviroloony on this board has ignored or brushed off this list. Show us how truly brilliant you are and address the list items objectively and scientifically.

Outline for us what would be required to reduce the A-CO<sub>2</sub> emission level to reduce the GCC rate by a specific level. The analysis must include:

• Irrefutable scientific evidence that human activity is causing GCC;
• Irrefutable scientific evidence of the percentage of GW attributable to human activity;
• A scientific study showing that a reduction of X% of anthropogenic CO<sub>2</sub> will result in Y% reduction of the rate of GCC;
• the necessary technologies for achieving the reduction;
• the costs of research and development to optimize them;
• the costs of manufacturing, distributing, installing, operating and maintaining the technologies;
• the negative environmental effects of the technologies;
• the economic impact of the technologies on the nations' businesses and governments;
• the impositions on the lifestyles of the people of the nations;
• the cost-benefit ratio of dollars spent vs the value of the achieved GCC change;
• the cost of minimizing natural changes in the level of "greenhouse gases" to maintain the target GCC rate;
• the source of funding for bringing the technologies online and operating them;
• the total economic burden of the entire process.
• the arguments against spending far less money to prepare for inevitable eventualities than to attempt to stop an unstoppable process.

We'll be awaiting your analysis.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/ChickenGlobal.jpg

Rhino

05-25-2006, 11:47 AM

No, instead you prefer to hang your hat on 1 climatalogist (apid handsomely by energy companies) as compared to the 2500 climate experts who say the casue is human in origin.After all the debates you've engaged in on this subject, do you really expect me to believe you think there is only one climatalogist who doubts the human contribution to global warming? Really, Borgia. I expect better from you.

DoctorDoom

05-25-2006, 12:01 PM

Really, Borgia. I expect better from you.Don't. That way you won't be disappointed when he robotically recites the standard liberal mantras.

Nutrider99

05-25-2006, 12:13 PM

Fact: Liberals exhale carbon dioxide.
Fact: Liberals serve no useful purpose.
Fact: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
Conclusion: Eliminating all liberals from the face of the earth will result in a reduction of greenhouse gasses. Will that reduce global warming? No, because global warming is caused by an increase in geothermal temperatues which translates to increased water temperatures. Greenhouses gasses don't have a damn thing to do with it any more than they were responsible for the "coming ice age" 30 years ago. Al Gore is quite simply a fool, and anyone who looks up to him is less than a fool.

Naturalized-Texan

05-25-2006, 12:23 PM

Borgia

05-25-2006, 12:25 PM

After all the debates you've engaged in on this subject, do you really expect me to believe you think there is only one climatalogist who doubts the human contribution to global warming? Really, Borgia. I expect better from you.

Of course there is more than one. The big question is, how many are they versus how many that DO concur with human caused global warming?

My understanding is the skeptics are far outnumbered (but I could be wrong so feel free to look it up). Because the skeptics are far outnumbered, I'll stick with the general consensus until better evidence shows up. Sound fair?

Gonzo67

05-25-2006, 01:09 PM

Well, if humans ARE the cause of global warming, all I can say is "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!" Every Friday I stand in my front yard with an aerosol can spraying it up into the air until it's empty yelling "SCREW FUTURE GENERATIONS! I'M COLD NOW!"

;)

Naturalized-Texan

05-25-2006, 01:27 PM

Of course there is more than one. The big question is, how many are they versus how many that DO concur with human caused global warming?

My understanding is the skeptics are far outnumbered (but I could be wrong so feel free to look it up). Because the skeptics are far outnumbered, I'll stick with the general consensus until better evidence shows up. Sound fair?
It really doesn't matter because those who claim that global warming is being caused by human activities have never produced any evidence, much less, proof, of that claim. Their claim is nothing more than a hypothesis based on speculations and suppositions.

Until and unless there is irrefutable PROOF that global warming is being caused by human activities, there is absoultely nothing that we can or should do about it.

Actually, there is evidence that the cooling and warming in the past 600 years has probably been caused by solar activity cycles - the 500-year Little Ice Age from the 14th Century to the 19th Century coincided with the almost complete absence of solar activity (the Maunder Minimum) and the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age has conincided with increased solar activity. Consequently, one can easily, and probably correctly, conclude that the current warming trend is completely natural.

In addition, there was a 500-year warming period from the 9th Century to the 14th Century (the Medieval Warm Period) during which global temperatures were higher than today's temperatures.

Could it have been that the Medieval Warm Period coincided with a period of increased solar activity? Possibly, but there is no way of knowing because the telescope hadn't been invented yet.

Could it be that global warming and global cooling run in 500-year cycles? Probably. If so, then we are probably now early in the 2nd century of a 500-year natural warming cycle.

Since it is far more likely that the current warming is natural rather than human-caused, there's nothing we can do to stop it short of turning off the Sun. So, we should just sit back and enjoy it.

Borgia

05-25-2006, 01:36 PM

It really doesn't matter because those who claim that global warming is being caused by human activities have never produced any evidence, much less, proof, of that claim. Their claim is nothing more than a hypothesis based on speculations and suppositions.

Until and unless there is irrefutable PROOF that global warming is being caused by human activities, there is absoultely nothing that we can or should do about it.

Here is the reality, NT. Neither you nor I could possibly understand the evidence for (or against) global warming as it is far too complicated for people outside the arena of expertise to adjudicate. We both could cite study after study on each side but neither of us would truly understand the climate models, what goes into them, or how well they examine other factors.

So I bow out of the specifics in this case and leave it to those far better than me in understanding the science of it all. If you want to play like you understand the science go right ahead. I'll happily admit ignorance on the subject.

And since I am ignorant of the science, I will defer to what the majority of climatologists have to say. If evidence shows that global warming is false, I have confidence that it will turn the tide. That is how scientific progress works.

Just remember, conservatives first said there was no global warming. Even Exxon admits it now.

Wolfcounsel

05-25-2006, 02:04 PM

Could somebody please give Algore a tranquilizer and show him how to weave baskets and twiddle his thumbs and toes? I can't believe there are people out there who believe his bullshit!

dPrasse

05-25-2006, 02:27 PM

No , borgia ... We've said that man has no impact on the climate ... Volcanoes and the Sun do more harm than man ever could ....plug the volcanoes and extinguish the sun , that should fix any GW ....

d'urville

05-25-2006, 02:39 PM

Nutrider99

05-25-2006, 03:25 PM

The "causes" for global warning was what was in question. Issue must not be "too complex" for the likes of Al Gore, he's been doing this Chicken Little bit for decades now.
No, first it was a global cold flash, now a global hot flash. Maybe the earth is just experiencing menopause.

Here's the facts you need to be concerned with. It is appointed unto each man first to die and after that the judgement. No matter what the final temperature of this planet, you AIN'T getting off alive. You ARE going to give an accounting for your actions to the one who created and will ultimately destroy the world. He will, in His time, not you in yours, no matter how hard you try.

Maggie_T

05-25-2006, 03:45 PM

Aw, geez, the Borgtroll is also a global warming expert.

LOL. Aren't they all? :rolleyes:

C'mon, guys. We all know that global warming is man's doing. It's caused by liberals, Al Gore, assorted eco-nazis, and other gasbags incesantly emitting their hot, gasseous imbecilities about global warming. Add to that vegetarians' emissions of methane gas and you have the picture.

Yep. All man-made.

Maggie_T

05-25-2006, 03:46 PM

Could somebody please give Algore a tranquilizer and show him how to weave baskets and twiddle his thumbs and toes? I can't believe there are people out there who believe his bullshit!

Ask markus and Borgia. :evilgrin: They are the "enlightened" ones.

Maggie_T

05-25-2006, 03:48 PM

Incidentally, Al Gore should lead by example. He should stop flying private jets everywhere and lead a simpler life.

Yeah, right. He's willing to make US change our way of life, drive silly little cars, layer sweaters in winter, etc., not his. He is a "Beautiful Person," an elitist, an "enlightened" one. He knows best, so he's right in preaching to us, little people, about a way of life he has no intention of leading.

Pompous bastard.

Naturalized-Texan

05-25-2006, 04:05 PM

Here is the reality, NT. Neither you nor I could possibly understand the evidence for (or against) global warming as it is far too complicated for people outside the arena of expertise to adjudicate. We both could cite study after study on each side but neither of us would truly understand the climate models, what goes into them, or how well they examine other factors.
Speak for yourself, child. With my science background (studied chemistry and physics, taught science, designed and wrote the software that guided the Apollo Command Module through the atmosphere, etc.), I understand enough about the science of global warming to know that no one has ever provided any evidence that global warming is being caused by human activities.

So I bow out of the specifics in this case and leave it to those far better than me in understanding the science of it all. If you want to play like you understand the science go right ahead. I'll happily admit ignorance on the subject.
It's good that you realize that you are way over your head when discussing science.

And since I am ignorant of the science,
We already knew that, but I'm glad that you finally admit it.

I will defer to what the majority of climatologists have to say. If evidence shows that global warming is false, I have confidence that it will turn the tide. That is how scientific progress works.
No one has ever said or implied that global warming is false. What is not proven is the cause of global warming. There is a strong difference of opinion on the subject with at least as many skeptics as believers among climatologists. When there is so much uncertainty about the cause, or causes, of global warming it is stupid to kill the American economy in a futile attempt to try to stop something that can't be stopped.

Just remember, conservatives first said there was no global warming. Even Exxon admits it now.
That is false and you know it - another of many examples of your intellectual dishonesty.

Maggie_T

05-25-2006, 04:14 PM

It's good that you realize that you are way over your head when discussing science.

Yes. Pity that does not stop him from babbling about it, though.

Rhino

05-25-2006, 04:41 PM

My understanding is the skeptics are far outnumbered (but I could be wrong so feel free to look it up). Because the skeptics are far outnumbered, I'll stick with the general consensus until better evidence shows up. Sound fair?Sure. You're entitled to your opinion. Mine is the opposite.

DesertFox

05-25-2006, 05:05 PM

show him how to weave baskets and twiddle his thumbs and toesAlas, they're not coming to take him away. :(

sunsettommy

05-25-2006, 05:34 PM

sunsettommy

05-25-2006, 05:40 PM

Is anybody actually going to go see this movie?

The "causes" for global warning was what was in question. Issue must not be "too complex" for the likes of Al Gore, he's been doing this Chicken Little bit for decades now.

Nah.

He has been obsessed since the 1970's.

The man wrote a book and proved he is scientifically illiterate.

He is currentlymaking a presentation of claims that have already been refuted.

Nah.

sunsettommy

05-25-2006, 05:48 PM

Interestingly enough, Balling agrees global warming is happening:

From Wikipedia,
The Earth is warming but the cause is unknown

Scientists in this section accept the observations of rising temperatures, but conclude it is too early to ascribe any cause to these changes, man-made or natural.

Richard Lindzen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen), MIT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT) meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy_of_Sciences): "We are quite confident that [the] global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago ... [but] we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future." [1] (http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000606)
Robert C. Balling, Jr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._Balling%2C_Jr.), director of the Office of Climatology and an associate professor of geography at Arizona State University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_State_University): "At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models." [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consens us (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consens us)

Then we have a PDF from Dr.Balling:

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/170.pdf

Care to make a more honest statement about what he believes in the future?

markus3622

05-26-2006, 03:23 AM

With regards to NT, it's because I do have a vague understanding of the science, and I think, more importantly, how science works, that I do accept the consensus. The basic principles aren't too difficult to understand.

I work in an allied field to climatology (hydrometeorology) and I've published in an American Meteorological Society journal. I'm just beginning my scientific career. I've spoken to climatologists, and certainly the impression I have is that most accept global warming (I've not met one that doesn't).

Borgia, don't feel intimidated. The science isn't that complex to understand (much of the mathematics might be however).

We know CO2 and other gases are greenhouse gases. Water vapor is the largest and makes up 60-80% of the greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide and methane make up between 20- 40% of the greenhouse effect. We know that the concentrations of these have changed (CO2 up 35%, methane up 100%), so it's fairly common sense that this could lead to increased temperatures. Increased temperatures could lead to increased water vapor, which would work as a positive feedback.

The science behind that has been fairly well understood. Arhenius warned against global warming in 1896.

I've been over all of this before. I think NT is a well-educated man, who made the wrong call 10 years ago, (that global warming was junk-science) and now trawls the internet, looking for right wing "science" articles that back him up.

DoctorDoom

05-26-2006, 05:16 AM

Fact: Liberals exhale carbon dioxide.
Fact: Liberals serve no useful purpose.
Fact: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
Conclusion: Eliminating all liberals from the face of the earth will result in a reduction of greenhouse gasses.Just the facts, Jack.

The human body produces about one kilogram of CO<sub>2</sub> daily. According to the World PopClock (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html):

According to the International Programs Center, U.S. Bureau of the Census, the total population of the World, projected to 05/26/06 at 11:09 GMT (EST+5) is 6,518,240,511. Ergo that is about 6 billion KG (allowing for kids exhaling less), or about 6,613,800 tons per day. In a year of 365.25 days, human breathing contributes 2,415,690,450 tons of CO<sub>2</sub>.

Volcanic activity now releases about 130-230 million metric tons (145-255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year. Volcanic releases are about 1% the amount which is released by human activities.Carbon Dioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide)

Taking the high value in short tons, 255 million, and multiplying by 100, we get 25.5 billion tons/year from human activity. Assuming that "human activity" doesn't include breathing, our exhalation of CO<sub>2</sub> increases the human-created amount by 9.5%.

But, don't tell liberals about that. They'll find a way to tax us for breathing.

DoctorDoom

05-26-2006, 05:26 AM

Note that the liberaloonies are as usual ignoring my opportunity for them to prove the validity of their bullshit notion that bad old humans are causing global warming. One would of course expect nothing else, since liberalism is all feeling and no thinking, and my list requires logic, reason and science.

Besides there are actually THOUSANDS of scientists who do not accept the moronic idea that CO2 is the main driver of global warming.And since they don't sign their names to junk-science proclamations, the liberal view is that they don't exist.

Borgia

05-26-2006, 06:35 AM

Ask markus and Borgia. :evilgrin: They are the "enlightened" ones.

Maggie, are you being willfully ignorant? I laid out explciitly in my post that I am no expert and the science is far beyond me. So I stick with the majority of scientists.

Borgia

05-26-2006, 06:38 AM

Really that is a valid point?

Tell that to Alfred Wegener.

He had most the Geologists of the world against him.The experts who should know better.

Alfred was AMATEUR geologist.He made a simple observation that since the coastlines of South America and Africa seem to indicate they were once joined in the past.He postulated correctly they were ONCE joined and it was derided by the rank and file professional Geologists of the day.

Guess who won?

This is just one example of a famous bucking of consensus.

You are not being rational.

Actually, you illustrate my point perfectly. This is EXACTLy how science works. A new thesis comes along from a minority position, it slowly gains acceptance through perr review and becomes the majority thesis.

And I am not being rational? Why? Because I do not accept EVERY minority scientific position? No, if I took every minority position THAT would be irrational.

dPrasse

05-26-2006, 06:44 AM

But, don't tell liberals about that. They'll find a way to tax us for breathing.

No kidding !

I'm just waiting for the tie in making abortion and euthanasia answers to reduce GW ...

We'd better clear out all of the rotting jungle/rain forest , too ... lots of methane created by rotting compost ...

I still think we should extinguish the sun ... that'll solve the whole "problem"

GW is just the earth correcting itself after the Ice Age ...

Maggie_T

05-26-2006, 06:57 AM

Maggie, are you being willfully ignorant? I laid out explciitly in my post that I am no expert and the science is far beyond me.

Yeah, I'm being willfully ignorant of the post in which you laid it out. I just posted what I did because I felt like it. :licky:

Incidentally, I have a great book for you to read. State of Fear, by Michael Crichton.

I know, I know. Crichton is not in the majority of those "scientists" you like to stick with (which means that he probably knows a lot more than the doom and gloom "scientists" of your preference). Still, his book is well researched and it should offer an interesting alternative thought to someone as open minded as yourself.

DoctorDoom

05-26-2006, 07:01 AM

No, if I took every minority position THAT would be irrational.So like all good, kneejerk liberals you only take the positions that conform to your leftist political bias.

Maggie_T

05-26-2006, 07:05 AM

Certainly. Otherwise, he would not be a libera.

Borgia

05-26-2006, 07:28 AM

Yeah, I'm being willfully ignorant of the post in which you laid it out. I just posted what I did because I felt like it. :licky:

Incidentally, I have a great book for you to read. State of Fear, by Michael Crichton.

I know, I know. Crichton is not in the majority of those "scientists" you like to stick with (which means that he probably knows a lot more than the doom and gloom "scientists" of your preference). Still, his book is well researched and it should offer an interesting alternative thought to someone as open minded as yourself.

Is Crichton a scientist at all? I thought he was a novelist writing FICTION. I'm sorry, when I look for reasoned research on a subject I don't normally turn to a novel. Sheesh, do you look at the DaVinci Code for your knowledge of Catholicism?

I know, Crichton weaves science into his tale. Yet he only shows one side and simplifies the other side to the level of silliness. For example, in State of Fear he states that scientists overpredicted warming by 300%. What he does not tell you is that scientists came up with 3 scenarios, best case, worst case and median. Crichton only supplies you with the worst case scenario and does not reveal to you that there were two other ones and the median scenario turns out to be pretty much spot on. How honest is it to delete the other two models and only use the worst case model?

A word of advice, just because something is footnoted, does not necessarily make it true.

Borgia

05-26-2006, 07:29 AM

So like all good, kneejerk liberals you only take the positions that conform to your leftist political bias.

No, in the realm of science, when I dont follow it, I assume the majority fo experts in that field are correct.

Why, what is your criteria for subjects of which you have no expertise?

DesertFox

05-26-2006, 07:37 AM

I long ago learned that Chicken Little science is pert near always wrong. Nothing I've learned since I learned that has been sufficiently compelling to change my mind.

However, I will change my mind if shown compelling reasons to change it. I've seen nothing of the sort on this business of human-caused global warming. In fact, the stuff I've read persuades me that humanity will actually benefit if the globe warms up.

FatherTime

05-26-2006, 08:17 AM

I haven't posted in a while due to unrelated matters.

but, if you search a few of my threads, you will see that I know just a thing or two about how water vapor works in both an open and closed environment.

The idea that humans are capable of producing enough heat-nrg to change the weather around the world is both arrogant and pure fiction.

If so-called "climatetologists" (what the **** is that?!!?! who thought up such garbage) want to post how this all occurs and show the math on how nrg can be used to demonstrate this, I am all ears/eyes.

I have talked with several other long time thermodynamicists (which is a profession that predates the Al-Goreisms of today for treehuggers) and none of them agree that what humans are doing can produce "global warming".

Pure volume of CO2 and HCFC's from our man made factories PALES in comparison to what occurs naturally.

Mt. St. Hellens recently had a burp and spewed out more "global warming gasses" in a few months than what humans have done in 10 years.

Now, we are seeing more volcanic activity and localized activities produce these types of things than humans could ever do.

Liberals are the most arrogant bugs on this planet. they think that they can single handedly change the course of our existance just by hugging a tree or using less toilet paper when they shit.

I challenge any liberal ****-wad to show how man-made heat-nrg or "greenhouse gasses" add any significant change w/o breaking the 3 laws of thermodynamics.

You have your challenge... no go forth and prove it.

[HINT: you can't prove it]

There was a wonderful chart that showed 3 things.
- Volcanic activity
- Solar Radiotion/Sun Spots
- Distance from the Sun based on the Earths rotation around the Sun.

100% corrolation.
http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm

and guess what else... MARS IS EXPERIENCING GLOBAL WARMING AS WELL!!! (must be the ****ing little green men)
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

FatherTime

05-26-2006, 08:22 AM

No, in the realm of science, when I dont follow it, I assume the majority fo experts in that field are correct.

Why, what is your criteria for subjects of which you have no expertise?
Like when those experts claimed the earth was the center of the universe? [Galleleo]

Or that the speed of sound (the sound barrier) could not be broken? [Chuck Yeager]

Or that it was impossible to make stable microchip circuits smaller than .28 microns? [Intel]

Or that fat chicks can't get ****ed? [Monica Lewinski]

Please. tell us all how "the experts all agree" is such a hard and fast rule that nobody should question it or ask for more proof before sentencing over 60M Americans to unemployment.

how about posting some facts instead of just random thoughts. Folks have more respect for facts than what you "think" might be the truth.
:bdh:

FatherTime

05-26-2006, 08:24 AM

Is Crichton a scientist at all? I thought he was a novelist writing FICTION.

Is Al-gore a scientist at all? I thought he was a politician, for whom all truth is in the eye of the beholder. ALL POLITICIANS LIE!!!:soap:

Maggie_T

05-26-2006, 08:24 AM

Is Crichton a scientist at all? I thought he was a novelist writing FICTION. I'm sorry, when I look for reasoned research on a subject I don't normally turn to a novel. Sheesh, do you look at the DaVinci Code for your knowledge of Catholicism?

Ah, I knew you'd be snippy about it. You liberals are so predictable.

I know, Crichton weaves science into his tale. Yet he only shows one side and simplifies the other side to the level of silliness.

Oh? And what undeniable proof do you have that your selected "majority" of "scientists" don't do the same thing? What certainty to you have that the drive-by media doesn't puts out only those bits of "news" that forward Al Gore's agenda? As a matter of fact, what certainty do we have that you read ONLY what the chicken little "scientists" put out, excluding every other theory?

For example, in State of Fear he states that scientists overpredicted warming by 300%. What he does not tell you is that scientists came up with 3 scenarios, best case, worst case and median. Crichton only supplies you with the worst case scenario and does not reveal to you that there were two other ones and the median scenario turns out to be pretty much spot on. How honest is it to delete the other two models and only use the worst case model?

See above.

A word of advice, just because something is footnoted, does not necessarily make it true.

Thank you. Allow me to return the gesture. Just because a bunch of "scientists" put out theories that forward the econazi agenda does not necessarily mean those theories are indisputable.

Maggie_T

05-26-2006, 08:27 AM

Is Al-gore a scientist at all? I thought he was a politician, for whom all truth is in the eye of the beholder. ALL POLITICIANS LIE!!!:soap:

VERY good point, FT.

markus3622

05-26-2006, 08:29 AM

How about posting some facts instead of just random thoughts. Folks have more respect for facts than what you "think" might be the truth.

How many times does it have to be said.

http://www.ipcc.ch/

The facts have been posted. Look at the science. Rhino was correct when he said no-one here is going to change their minds now. The evidence is out there. Gore got it right, although, maybe for the wrong reasons. The "conservative" take on global warming got it wrong.

DoctorDoom

05-26-2006, 08:32 AM

Like all liberals, the Borg believes in science by consensus. The "science" can be absolute hoghwash, but as long as enough "scientists" support it, that's good enough for libs.

DoctorDoom

05-26-2006, 08:39 AM

How many times does it have to be said. ... The facts have been posted. Look at the science. Rhino was correct when he said no-one here is going to change their minds now. The evidence is out there. Gore got it right, although, maybe for the wrong reasons. The "conservative" take on global warming got it wrong.And how many times does it have to be said that until you brain-damaged envirowackos prove your bullshit about humans causing global warming, your credibility here will be zero?

You have my list of points, assmite. Address them. We're up to here with your alarmist poppycock.

markus3622

05-26-2006, 08:39 AM

This debate has turned into another evolution/creation debate.

Maggie_T

05-26-2006, 08:41 AM

Hmmmmwell, I'd make a slight alteration to your post, Doc, with your permission.

The "science" can be absolute hoghwash, but as long as enough "scientists" who support the econazi agenda support it, that's good enough for libs.

Believe me, if thousands of scientists suddenly came up - or became published or quoted by the drive-by media - and declared man-made global warming a load of bunk, liberals would call them idiots and resort to their typical MO: character assasination - or academic assasination, if you prefer.

DoctorDoom

05-26-2006, 08:42 AM

And the "science" of the GW zealots is as nonsensical as evolutionism.

IAC, since there is a forum for this topic, this thread is hereby relocated.

DoctorDoom

05-26-2006, 08:43 AM

markus3622

05-26-2006, 08:46 AM

"Econazi" LOL

Borgia

05-26-2006, 09:42 AM

Please. tell us all how "the experts all agree" is such a hard and fast rule that nobody should question it or ask for more proof before sentencing over 60M Americans to unemployment.

I did not say the experts all agree, did I? Experts should question theories, that is how science progresses.

And of course scientific theories will be proven wrong. Of course, just because some are proven wrong does not mean we should abandon all scientific theories, right? How about we stick with the tried and true scientific method which works just fine. Feel free to propose your alternate theories and have them go through peer review. If they have merit, they will grow.

how about posting some facts instead of just random thoughts. Folks have more respect for facts than what you "think" might be the truth.

I am not an expert on global warming and neither are you. If you choose to believe the minority position that is fine. I am sure there is minority position that disbelieves F=ma that you can join as well if you like.

Rhino

05-26-2006, 10:22 AM

Very good, dear lady! Your amendment is approved unanimously.No, no! Approved by consensus!!

DoctorDoom

05-26-2006, 11:12 AM

She asked for my approval and I unanimously approved it after obtaining a consensus of my opinion. :evilgrin:

Rhino

05-26-2006, 11:30 AM

Ah! I understand now.

sunsettommy

05-26-2006, 12:10 PM

No, in the realm of science, when I dont follow it, I assume the majority fo experts in that field are correct.

Why, what is your criteria for subjects of which you have no expertise?

So you ASSUME.

:hahaha:

sunsettommy

05-26-2006, 12:16 PM

Is Crichton a scientist at all? I thought he was a novelist writing FICTION. I'm sorry, when I look for reasoned research on a subject I don't normally turn to a novel. Sheesh, do you look at the DaVinci Code for your knowledge of Catholicism?

I know, Crichton weaves science into his tale. Yet he only shows one side and simplifies the other side to the level of silliness. For example, in State of Fear he states that scientists overpredicted warming by 300%. What he does not tell you is that scientists came up with 3 scenarios, best case, worst case and median. Crichton only supplies you with the worst case scenario and does not reveal to you that there were two other ones and the median scenario turns out to be pretty much spot on. How honest is it to delete the other two models and only use the worst case model?

A word of advice, just because something is footnoted, does not necessarily make it true.

Your ignorance is noted.

Please supply the proof or retract on the 3 models you brought up.

Here from Wikipedia:

Biography

John Michael Crichton was born on October 23 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_23), 1942 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1942) in Chicago, Illinois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago%2C_Illinois) to John Henderson Crichton and Zula Miller Crichton, and raised in Roslyn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roslyn%2C_New_York), Long Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Island), New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York).<SUP class=reference id=_ref-kids_1>[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#_note-kids)</SUP>
He attended Harvard University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University), where he graduated summa cum laude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_cum_laude) in anthropology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology). He went on to teach physical anthropology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_anthropology) at the University of Cambridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Cambridge) in England, later returning to Massachusetts to gain an M.D. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.D.) degree from Harvard Medical School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Medical_School). <SUP class=reference id=_ref-kids_2>[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#_note-kids)</SUP>
A strong credit to Crichton's entertainment work is that he is the only person to have had the number one movie, the number one book, and the number one television show in the United States at the same time.

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

Make that TWO college degrees.

The man is smart!

sunsettommy

05-26-2006, 12:20 PM

Is Al-gore a scientist at all? I thought he was a politician, for whom all truth is in the eye of the beholder. ALL POLITICIANS LIE!!!:soap:

Carefull now that point will be missed by the man who assumes that the majority has it right.

I myself showed that just ONE man proved almost all the expert geologists of the day wrong.

Alfred Wegener.An amateur.

He missed the point I made badly.So why should he get your point understood?

Naturalized-Texan

05-26-2006, 12:29 PM

Hmmmmwell, I'd make a slight alteration to your post, Doc, with your permission.

The "science" can be absolute hoghwash, but as long as enough "scientists" who support the econazi agenda support it, that's good enough for libs.
I prefer the word "enviroNazis" to "econazis", but both are correct. The IPCC is a UN creation that is being used as a means to attain the stated UN goal to force the nations of the world into a world government under UN control. Consequently, the IPCC produces the leftist Big Lie Propaganda that the UN demands that it produce, hence the correctness of either term - "enviroNazis" or "econazis".

Believe me, if thousands of scientists suddenly came up - or became published or quoted by the drive-by media - and declared man-made global warming a load of bunk, liberals would call them idiots and resort to their typical MO: character assasination - or academic assasination, if you prefer.
The liberal-controlled drive-by media are willing accomplices of the UN, IPCC, and the "enviroNazis"/"econazis".

Naturalized-Texan

05-26-2006, 12:37 PM

This is a good time to point out out that the dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/consensus) definition of "consensus" is "unanimity". There is certainly no unanimity about the cause or causes of global warming when at least as many scientists are skeptics as there are believers.

Nutrider99

05-26-2006, 12:41 PM

I did not say the experts all agree, did I? Experts should question theories, that is how science progresses.

And of course scientific theories will be proven wrong. Of course, just because some are proven wrong does not mean we should abandon all scientific theories, right?
A scientific theory is not believed until proven wrong, it is considered suspect until proven right. Since the models on which the "experts" agree has never been proven right, how can anyone in their right mind suggest destroying the American economy on such an unknown?

Only an America hating lib could go for such stupidity. By the way, do you recall that the Senate voted 92-0 that they would NOT approve the Kyoto treaty even if the president signed it?

Naturalized-Texan

05-26-2006, 12:53 PM

Rhino

05-26-2006, 12:56 PM

Nutrider: But the claim that global warming is being caused by human activities does not even reach the level of a theory. It is merely a hypothesis.

hypothesis implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation.

theory implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth.Politics implies no evidence and no likeliehood of truth.

Nutrider99

05-26-2006, 01:06 PM

Nutrider: But the claim that global warming is being caused by human activities does not even reach the level of a theory. It is merely a hypothesis.

hypothesis implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation.

theory implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth.
This is, of course, true. Which then begs the question, why are these morons making such a big deal out of something that doesn't have the validity of a Jules Vern novel?

FatherTime

05-26-2006, 06:15 PM

Ever notice how when you challenge a liberal to do the math and prove something, they run and hide or point to a report that shows no math either?

Do a quick check on those PDF docs off that sight posted and you quickly realize that they results are however you want to read them.

they pretty much cherry picked which results to use. They COMPLETELY IGNORED TESTIMONY GIVEN IN WASHINGTON RELATED TO SOLAR ACTIVITY!!!

What a crock of shit.

Talk to a long time HAM radio op and ask them what years were best for QSO's, hot summers with high solar activity... (their are hundreds of log books recording TEMP and signal strength from around the world at the ARRL headquarters...)

Wouldn't it be nice to have facts posted instead of personal attacks from libs?

Naturalized-Texan

05-28-2006, 10:11 AM

markus3622

05-29-2006, 09:23 AM

Since there is no way that I’ll ever see AlGore’s Big Lie Propaganda screed, I ask that anyone who does see it to bring back the answers to the following questions:

- Does AlGore mention the fact that at least half the warming in the past 100+ years occurred before 1940, prior to the great industrial expansion and population boom since WW II?

Here's the diagram

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Here's the temperature graph. If we're being kind, the temperature increase before 1940 is at best from about -0.44C to 0C. It then cools to around -0.8C and then increases to 0.48C. There's been more warming since the 1960s.

Secondly, climatologists who actually study climate change state that they believe the warming before 1940 to be largely due to increases in solar activity and since 1960 to be largely due to increases in greenhouse gases

- Does AlGore mention the fact that between 1940 and 1980 there was significant global cooling that caused widespread panic among climate scientists and politicians who were so concerned about possible famines caused by shortened growing seasons that they recommended that people buy up and hoard food?

Why should he lie? This wasn't the case. We've discussed it before.

- Does AlGore mention the fact that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice packs are THICKENING?

I thought we all agreed the planet is getting warmer? Have you changed your mind.

Anyway, back to the science. A recent study has shown that rapid glacier movement (faster than previously seen)

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5763/986?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Eric+Rignot&searchid=1140685562476_1327&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=sci

I'll post an abstract from a study from the Journal of Glaciology showing thinning at the edges but thickening at higher altitudes.

Mass changes of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and
shelves and contributions to sea-level rise: 1992–2002

Zwally et al, 2005, Journal of Glaciology

Vol. 51, No. 175,

ABSTRACT. Changes in ice mass are estimated from elevation changes derived from 10.5 years (Greenland) and 9 years (<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on">Antarctica</st1:place>) of satellite radar altimetry data from the European Remote-sensing Satellites ERS-1 and -2. For the first time, the dH/dt values are adjusted for changes in surface elevation resulting from temperature-driven variations in the rate of firn compaction. The <st1:place w:st="on">Greenland</st1:place> ice sheet is thinning at the margins (–42 2Gt a–1 below the equilibrium-line altitude (ELA)) and growing inland (+532Gt a–1 above the ELA) with a small overall mass gain (+113Gt a–1; –0.03mma–1 SLE (sea-level equivalent)). The ice sheet inWest Antarctica (WA) is losing mass (–474Gt a–1) and the ice sheet in East Antarctica (EA) shows a small mass gain (+1611 Gt a–1) for a combined net change of –3112 Gt a–1 (+0.08mma–1 SLE). The contribution of the three ice sheets to sea level is +0.050.03mma–1. The Antarctic ice shelves show corresponding mass changes of –9511 Gt a–1 in WA and +14210 Gt a–1 in EA. Thinning at the margins of the <st1:place w:st="on">Greenland</st1:place> ice sheet and growth at higher elevations is an expected response to increasing temperatures and precipitation in a warming climate. The marked thinnings in the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Pine</st1:PlaceName> <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/ /><st1:PlaceName w:st=Pine</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st=" /><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Island</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> and Thwaites Glacier basins of WA and the Totten Glacier basin in EA are probably icedynamic responses to long-term climate change and perhaps past removal of their adjacent ice shelves. The ice growth in the southern <st1:place w:st="on">Antarctic Peninsula</st1:place> and parts of EA may be due to increasing precipitation during the last century.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

What it shows is that thickening at higher altitudes is a result of increased precipiation as a result of a warming climate. Observations in Antarctica and Greenland support the climattologists and global warming. If Gore doesn't mention it in his film, it's perhaps because he's got so much evidence of global warming, he hasn't time for this extra evidence.

- Does AlGore mention the fact that Urban Heat Islands in major cities around the world are a major cause of increased global temperatures? For example, according to temperature data from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in the past 100 years temperatures in New York City have increased, while temperatures in Albany, about 150 miles up the Hudson, have fallen in the same period.

Why should he lie? This is the data from Albany

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/STATIONS//tmp.425725180000.1.1/station.gif

I can certainly see an upward trend there. You'd have to really cherry-pick your data to see a cooling trend in Albany.

Furthermore, IPCC have studied the heat-island effect.

Clearly, the urban heat island effect is a real climate change in urban areas, but is not representative of larger areas. Extensive tests have shown that the urban heat island effects are no more than about 0.05°C up to 1990 in the global temperature records used in this chapter to depict climate change. Thus we have assumed an uncertainty of zero in global land-surface air temperature in 1900 due to urbanisation, linearly increasing to 0.06°C (two standard deviations 0.12°C) in 2000.

Every question you pose has been answered. You reject global warming for non-scientific reasons. Fair enough, but at least be honest about it.

Naturalized-Texan

05-29-2006, 11:49 AM

The global temperatures graph you posted proves that at least half the warming in the past 100+ years occurred prior to 1940. Thanks.

I'm glad that you finally admitted that solar activity is a cause of global warming. We're making progress in bringing you around to the truth.

Why should he lie? This wasn't the case. We've discussed it before.
Yes we have discussed this before and sunsettommy and I have proved beyond any doubt that between 1940 and 1980 there was significant global cooling that caused widespread panic among climate scientists and politicians who were so concerned about possible famines caused by shortened growing seasons that they recommended that people buy up and hoard food. That proof was posted in this forum after you had your little snit and left these discussions for an extended period of time. You need to go back and read all the threads we posted in this subject.

Of course, the global temperatures graph you posted proves that there was a cooling trend from 1940 to 1980. Thanks for providing that proof.

Global warming or global cooling? (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1034077.cms)

Amost as soon as the Kyoto Protocol on global warming came into effect on February 15, Kashmir suffered the highest snowfall in three decades with over 150 killed, and Mumbai recorded the lowest temperature in 40 years. Had temperatures been the highest for decades, newspapers would have declared this was proof of global warming. But whenever temperatures drop, the press keeps quiet.

Things were different in 1940-70, when there was global cooling. Every cold winter then was hailed as proof of a coming new Ice Age. But the moment cooling was replaced by warming, a new disaster in the opposite direction was proclaimed.

A recent Washington Post article gave this scientist's quote from 1972. "We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." The warning was not about global warming (which was not happening): it was about global cooling!

Is it true that there was a global cooling scare in the 1970s? Yes! (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/global%20cooling.htm)

Yes it is true but, like the little ice age and the mediaeval warm period, it is dismissed by the eco-theological propagandists as having never happened. In this case, however, there is not only extensive documentation but also the memories of those old enough to have experienced the scare, to whom the claim is a gratuitous insult.
Note: at this site there is a link to the Newsweek article about the 1970s global cooling scare and to the fantastic engineering solutions being promoted at the time, in pdf format.

I can certainly see an upward trend there. You'd have to really cherry-pick your data to see a cooling trend in Albany.
Well it looks like a flat or slightly downward trend to me.

However, I did make a mistake in the dates. Since 1820, New York City had a temperature increase of 5 deg F, while Albany had a decline of 0.5 deg F, and West Point, NY, had no change whatsoever in the same period, according to data compiled from the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html) by Michael Crichton and published in State of Fear (Not GISS as I stated before. Sorry for the confusion). Here is some more data:

From 1930 to 2000, temperatures in NYC increased by 1 deg. F, while temperatures in Syracuse, NY, declined by nearly 2 deg F, Albany declined by 1 deg F, Oswego, NY, declined by 1 deg F, and West Point, NY, declined by 0.5 deg F in the same period, according to USHCN data.

Naturalized-Texan

05-29-2006, 12:00 PM

The Antarctic Ice Sheet is Growing Thicker (http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet.htm)

Glaciers are growing around the world, including the United States (http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm)

Naturalized-Texan

05-29-2006, 12:45 PM

markus: You asked a question about AlGore that I forgot to answer:

Why should he lie?
Why, indeed? Well, there are several answers to that question:

- AlGore is a pathological liar.
- AlGore suffers from paranoid schizophrenia.
- AlGore is a liberal and liberals don't dare tell the truth about what they plan to do TO the American people.
- AlGore is a disciple of Hitler's Minister of Propaganda, Josef Goebbels, originator of the Big Lie Propaganda technique.
- AlGore has no choice but to lie about his global warming political scam.
- AlGore learned his lessons well from his former boss, that pathological liar, BJ Clinton.
- AlGore is a UN lackey who is acting on the UN's behest.

Remember, AlGore showed his true colors when he lied, cheated, and stole in in his efforts to overturn the 2000 presidential election that he clearly lost. No sane person should ever believe anything he says or does.

I'm sorry that I didn't answer your question sooner. You deserved a more prompt answer.

markus3622

05-30-2006, 03:10 AM

The global temperatures graph you posted proves that at least half the warming in the past 100+ years occurred prior to 1940. Thanks.

I'm glad that you finally admitted that solar activity is a cause of global warming. We're making progress in bringing you around to the truth.

No it doesn't. It shows that less than half of the warming occurred before 1940. What I've admitted is that scientists believe that the "rebound from the little ice age" ended in around 1940, but that it doesn't explain the warming that occured from 1970 to the present. How far are you prepared to go with this "rebound"? You seem to make the error of assuming the same mechanism for warming both before and after 1940.

Yes we have discussed this before and sunsettommy and I have proved beyond any doubt that between 1940 and 1980 there was significant global cooling that caused widespread panic among climate scientists and politicians who were so concerned about possible famines caused by shortened growing seasons that they recommended that people buy up and hoard food. That proof was posted in this forum after you had your little snit and left these discussions for an extended period of time. You need to go back and read all the threads we posted in this subject.

As we've discussed before, you've got a Washington Post article from 1972 and a Newsweek article from 1975. It doesn't compare in the slightest to the IPCC, the number of articles in scholarly articles, the statements by scientific bodies, heads of state. If I use google-scholar and enter "global warming" I get 77,800 responses. If I type in "global cooling", I get 2,820 articles. If I limit this to between 1940 and 1980, I get 43 responses for global cooling. Given that many of these articles are about other cooling events (pliocene era, for example), you're really relying on a handful of articles that were actually about the global cooling you refer to. This is a red herring, and it doesn't help your cause.

Well it looks like a flat or slightly downward trend to me.

Well, I downloaded the data and got an upward trend of 0.00778C per year (over 123 years, that's 0.95C). All this data is freely available on the internet.

However, I did make a mistake in the dates. Since 1820, New York City had a temperature increase of 5 deg F, while Albany had a decline of 0.5 deg F, and West Point, NY, had no change whatsoever in the same period, according to data compiled from the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html) by Michael Crichton and published in State of Fear (Not GISS as I stated before. Sorry for the confusion). Here is some more data:

From 1930 to 2000, temperatures in NYC increased by 1 deg. F, while temperatures in Syracuse, NY, declined by nearly 2 deg F, Albany declined by 1 deg F, Oswego, NY, declined by 1 deg F, and West Point, NY, declined by 0.5 deg F in the same period, according to USHCN data.

But here, you're cherry picking. The indisputable fact (which you've already said you agree with) is that the global average temperature has increased since 1970. Individual data points don't change that.

Going back to the ice sheets, it's been discussed why certain parts of the ice sheets are thickening, and the data supports the fact that the earth is warming (which you agree with).

DoctorDoom

05-30-2006, 03:26 AM

sunsettommy

05-30-2006, 11:45 AM

NOAA ATTRIBUTES RECENT INCREASE IN HURRICANE ACTIVITY
TO NATURALLY OCCURRING MULTI-DECADAL CLIMATE VARIABILITY
Excerpt:

Nov. 29, 2005 — The nation is now wrapping up the 11th year of a new era of heightened Atlantic hurricane activity (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/). This era has been unfolding in the Atlantic since 1995, and is expected to continue for the next decade or perhaps longer. NOAA (http://www.noaa.gov/) attributes this increased activity to natural occurring cycles in tropical climate patterns near the equator. These cycles, called “the tropical multi-decadal signal,” typically last several decades (20 to 30 years or even longer). As a result, the North Atlantic experiences alternating decades long (20 to 30 year periods or even longer) of above normal or below normal hurricane seasons. NOAA research shows that the tropical multi-decadal signal is causing the increased Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995, and is not related to greenhouse warming. (Click NOAA image for larger view of North Atlantic tropical storms and hurricanes, 1851 - 2004. Click here (http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/images/allstorms.jpg) for high resolution version. Please credit “NOAA.")

The tropical multi-decadal signal presents itself in weather events around the world, including Atlantic hurricane variability. The tropical climate patterns producing the increased activity since 1995 are similar to those during the previous active hurricane era of the late 1920s to the late 1960s (1926-1970). These patterns are opposite to the below-normal hurricane era which ran from 1970 to 1994.
http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/images/2005hurricane1c.jpg (http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/images/2005hurricane1b.jpg)Since 1995, the tropical multi-decadal signal has produced lower wind shear (changing winds with height) and warmer waters across the tropical Atlantic, along with conducive winds coming off the west coast of Africa. This key combination of conditions produces active hurricane seasons. (Click NOAA image for larger view of the tropical Atlantic conditions that have prevailed since 1995. Click here (http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/images/2005hurricane1.jpg) for high resolution version. Please credit “NOAA.")

(A lot more)

http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag184.htm

I wonder if after reading this will anyone still cling to the absurd idea that an increase in a trace gas would create that much response.

Golly that would mean the planet endured Mach storms a few million years ago when the planetary climate was around 36 degrees warmer.

:hahaha:

Naturalized-Texan

05-30-2006, 01:02 PM

Scientists were in such a panic about global cooling in the 1970s that they came up with a series of harebrained schemes to save the world from that disastrous cooling. Here are some examples:

- Transform the Arctic Ocean into an ice-free ocean.
- Dam the Bering Strait.
- Deflect the Gulf Stream.
- Deflect the Kuroshio Current.
- Create a Siberian Sea.
- Create African seas.
- Transport water from Alaska and Canada to be evaporated by irrigation in western U.S. and Mexico.

See Controlling the Planet's Climate (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cooling2.pdf) for more details of those panic-generated, harebrained schemes to reverse global cooling.

Naturalized-Texan

05-30-2006, 01:15 PM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
OK, let's take a close look at this graph. It shows an increase in temperatures from the low point at the end of the Little Ice Age to the first peak in 1945 of about 0.46 deg C. Then we see a net increase of 0.4 deg C from 1945 to present. That graph actually shows that MORE than half the warming in the past 100 years occurred prior to 1945.

Just as in many other instances, you have significant problems reading graphs. Maybe you should have your eyes checked. It appears that you may have a vision problem that prevents you from reading graphs.

Naturalized-Texan

05-30-2006, 01:19 PM

markus: BTW, where's your proof of the hypothesis that global warming is being caused by human activities? It is a hypothesis because there isn't even enough evidence to call it a theory.

Naturalized-Texan

05-30-2006, 04:28 PM

Since markus probably wasn’t even alive when the Newsweek global cooling article (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cooling1.pdf) was published on April 28, 1975, he only knows what his leftist indoctrinators tell him about the history of those years. It’s clear from the reporting in that article that the global cooling between 1945 and 1975 was causing much panic among scientists, including those at the National Academy of Sciences and NOAA. Here are a few excerpts from that article:

There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production-with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only ten years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the north, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas-parts of India, Pakistan. Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainly into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

The following graph that I have posted several times accompanied the Newsweek article and shows the dramatic decline in global temperatures that was the reason for the panic:

http://users4.ev1.net/~rwadding/globalcooling.jpg

Timberwolf

05-30-2006, 10:03 PM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

People, look VERY carefully at the above graph, and then tell me, "What's wrong with the Global Warming theory?".

Okay, look at the left side of the graph. "Temperature ANOMALY" is what *I* read. Now, look at the bottom of the graph, I see 20 year spans dating to 1860.

NOW, look at the red line which indicates the 5 year average temperature and notice that it doesn't rise above THE CONSIDERED NORM (0º C) until 1979.

How in blue blazes can ANYONE with a single functioning brain cell even be concerned about warming? I have only one word to say on the subject..."BAH!!"

markus3622

05-31-2006, 02:32 AM

OK, let's take a close look at this graph. It shows an increase in temperatures from the low point at the end of the Little Ice Age to the first peak in 1945 of about 0.46 deg C. Then we see a net increase of 0.4 deg C from 1945 to present. That graph actually shows that MORE than half the warming in the past 100 years occurred prior to 1945.

Just as in many other instances, you have significant problems reading graphs. Maybe you should have your eyes checked. It appears that you may have a vision problem that prevents you from reading graphs.

NT, two points. First, you're cherry picking the highest and lowest points you can find to get your 0.46C and 0.4C. I could cherry pick and get 0.3C and 0.5C. Secondly, it doesn't matter - it's irrelevant as the two warming periods have to be studied differently.

BTW, where's your proof of the hypothesis that global warming is being caused by human activities?

Have you forgotten? I'm still waiting you to provide some empirical observations (that are actually possible) that would be satisfy you as strong evidence that global warming were caused by anthropogenic emissions. Don't forget, proof doesn't exist in science.

Since markus probably wasn’t even alive when the Newsweek global cooling article (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cooling1.pdf) was published on April 28, 1975...

It's still only a Newsweek article, no matter when it was published. It doesn't matter how you spin it, it's an article in the popular press. It's a complete red herring.

markus3622

05-31-2006, 02:35 AM

People, look VERY carefully at the above graph, and then tell me, "What's wrong with the Global Warming theory?".

Okay, look at the left side of the graph. "Temperature ANOMALY" is what *I* read. Now, look at the bottom of the graph, I see 20 year spans dating to 1860.

NOW, look at the red line which indicates the 5 year average temperature and notice that it doesn't rise above THE CONSIDERED NORM (0º C) until 1979.

How in blue blazes can ANYONE with a single functioning brain cell even be concerned about warming? I have only one word to say on the subject..."BAH!!"

Why are the temperatures expressed as anomalies from 1961-90? Stations on land are at different elevations, and different countries estimate average monthly temperatures using different methods and formulae. To avoid biases that could result from these problems, monthly average temperatures are reduced to anomalies from the period with best coverage (1961-90). For stations to be used, an estimate of the base period average must be calculated. Because many stations do not have complete records for the 1961-90 period several methods have been developed to estimate 1961-90 averages from neighbouring records or using other sources of data. Over the oceans, where observations are generally made from mobile platforms, it is impossible to assemble long series of actual temperatures for fixed points. However it is possible to interpolate historical data to create spatially complete reference climatologies (averages for 1961-90) so that individual observations can be compared with a local normal for the given day of the year.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#faq

Hopefully that explains it.

RayChuang

05-31-2006, 08:25 AM

markus,

I don't believe the "global warming is caused by humans" Bravo Sierra for one good reason: careful scientific research into our distant past by studying tree rings, the ice pack in Antarctica and our fossil records show that Earth's climate has undergone substantial ups and downs in terms of atmospheric temperatures.

For example, just only 30,000 years ago (probably just as humans did their migration to North America through the Siberia-Alaska "land bridge"), what is now Yosemite Valley at Yosemite National Park was completely covered over with a big glacier. Yet by only 12,000 years ago that glacier was gone. We know from fossil records that around 45 million years ago there was a huge spike in Earth's temperature, resulting in massive forests all over the planet. And studies of more recent times show that during the 17th and 18th Centuries, the lack of sunspots on the Sun resulted in nearly a century of extremely cold winters in Europe--the Thames River in England froze over easily every winter.

In short, the best way to check on Earth's climate is to watch the radiative output from the Sun and to watch for any large-scale volcanic eruption that can literally cool the atmosphere for years.

markus3622

05-31-2006, 08:45 AM

Ray Chuang

I can understand the appeal of that argument, I really can. It's very intuitive. But it suffers from one flaw. These past natural changes have been studied by paleoclimatologists, and I think the general consensus is that they were due to changes in solar activity and orbit (Milankovitch theory), and then feedbacks came into play that affected these periods.

However, you make the leap that the present change in climate is due to changes in solar activity. There's a big flaw in doing so. The climatologists studying climate change aren't observing any change in solar activity, but they are observing significant increases in greenhouse gases (GHG). These GHG increases explain the warming and solar activity doesn't.

In addition, there are "fingerprints" in the warming that suggest that GHGs are the cause, and not solar activity. For example the troposphere (lower level atmosphere) is warming and the stratosphere (higher level) is cooling. If extra solar activity were the cause, we'd expect both layers to warm.

RayChuang

05-31-2006, 09:44 AM

markus,

Also, one thing that can throw off temperature readings is the fact weather stations are mostly located in urban areas--the fast growth of urban areas in the last 100 years has skewed temperature readings upward given that urban areas tend to be heat islands.

Temperature readings from non-urban areas over the last 100 years show that the Earth's temperature hasn't really changed that much.

I still subscribe to the solar activity changing Earth's climate theory for one reason: the effect of the Sun's solar wind and radiation is far stronger than any human activity, as we know from the Maunder minimum low sunspot readings from 1745 to 1815, where Europe regularly froze over during winter.

Naturalized-Texan

05-31-2006, 10:03 AM

NT, two points. First, you're cherry picking the highest and lowest points you can find to get your 0.46C and 0.4C. I could cherry pick and get 0.3C and 0.5C. Secondly, it doesn't matter - it's irrelevant as the two warming periods have to be studied differently.
In the case of that graph, the ONLY way to measure temperature differences is beteen the low point and the following high point.

Have you forgotten? I'm still waiting you to provide some empirical observations (that are actually possible) that would be satisfy you as strong evidence that global warming were caused by anthropogenic emissions.
I already provided you with the criteria that yould constitute proof. Now, where is your proof?

Don't forget, proof doesn't exist in science.
That may be true in your brand of pseudo-science, but not in the real world where there actually is such a thing as scientific proof.

It's still only a Newsweek article, no matter when it was published. It doesn't matter how you spin it, it's an article in the popular press. It's a complete red herring.
So, you're saying that a news report by a trusted journalist in a liberal news weekly is false just because it conflicts with the Big Lie Propaganda with which you have been brainwashed. Get real! Come join me in the real world.

Naturalized-Texan

05-31-2006, 10:05 AM

markus:
Here are a couple of tidbits from that Newsweek news article that should be of particular interest to you:

“In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant over-all loss in grain production estimated at up to 100.000 tons annually.”

In 1975 scientists feared that the planet was reverting to the Little Ice Age “conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 - years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.”

Borgia

05-31-2006, 11:12 AM

That may be true in your brand of pseudo-science, but not in the real world where there actually is such a thing as scientific proof.

Um, ask any scientist and they will tell you that proof is relegated to the world of mathematics and logic. Here is a helpful site for you:

http://www.carlton.srsd119.ca/chemical/Proof/default.htm

So, you're saying that a news report by a trusted journalist in a liberal news weekly is false just because it conflicts with the Big Lie Propaganda with which you have been brainwashed. Get real! Come join me in the real world.

Newsweek is hardly a bastion of scientific prowess but if YOU trust it for your scientific education that is your option. You will note that no scientist publishes in it though.

markus3622

05-31-2006, 11:15 AM

Naturalized-Texan

05-31-2006, 12:46 PM

Absolute proof does not exist in science. Explain what you mean by proof. Perhaps you meant strong evidence. What you suggested before would not be possible. You demanded proof as rigorous as geometry.

List some empirical observations that would be strong evidence for anthropogenic climate change. These must be possible.
Spin! Spin! Spin! You are spinning so fast that you are drilling a hole for yourself that will soon reach the core of the Earth. You forget that I studied and taught science and I know very well that there certainly is such a thing as scientific proof and SO DO YOU. However, since you know very well that there is absolutely no evidence that global warming is anthropogenic, much less proof, your spinning is merely a futile attempt to obfuscate that fact.

Also explain why models in principle are to be ruled out.
This is just too easy. The climate models that the junk scientists are using as the ONLY basis for their claim of anthropogenic global warming are not valid because they can't even replicate the changes in the climate in the past 30 years. A model that can't even replicate the past certainly can't predict the future.

You are getting dangerously close to placing yourself next to AlGore as a prime kook.

Borgia

05-31-2006, 12:59 PM

This is just too easy. The climate models that the junk scientists are using as the ONLY basis for their claim of anthropogenic global warming are not valid because they can't even replicate the changes in the climate in the past 30 years. A model that can't even replicate the past certainly can't predict the future.

Hmm, are you saying that a model that can replicate the climate change for the past thirty years (within error limits) would suffice as "proof" for you?

Borgia

05-31-2006, 01:07 PM

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000525AD-1223-1354-922383414B7F0000

To confirm the model's accuracy, Diffenbaugh ran it using weather data from between 1961 and 1985 and compared the prediction with what actually occurred. "The model performed admirably, which tells us we've got a good understanding of how to represent the physical world in terms of computer code," he comments.

http://www.ucar.edu/communications/CCSM/accuracy.html

One way to check a model is to see whether it can recreate known climate patterns. When scientists tested CCSM-2, they aimed to reproduce Earth’s climate from 1870 to 2000. They also recreated the irregular cycle of the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean and the ebb and flow of sea ice in the polar regions. In each instance, the model produced simulations that closely resembled known climate data. In the case of sea ice, for example, CCSM-2 matched satellite observations of ice pack movements over the cycle of seasons—a major achievement because of the many forces that drive the formation of sea ice, including temperatures, ocean currents, and precipitation.

Another way to check a model is to examine whether it can simulate Earth’s climate over centuries without drifting from actual world conditions. To conduct this test, scientists ran a 1,000-year simulation with hypothetical conditions based on the current-day atmosphere remaining unchanged. The results: CCSM-2 produced realistic climate patterns without requiring scientists to correct for any drift. This is known as "flux-free" modeling, and it is unique to CCSM-2.

Do these meet your criteria?

markus3622

05-31-2006, 01:28 PM

Spin! Spin! Spin! You are spinning so fast that you are drilling a hole for yourself that will soon reach the core of the Earth. You forget that I studied and taught science and I know very well that there certainly is such a thing as scientific proof and SO DO YOU. However, since you know very well that there is absolutely no evidence that global warming is anthropogenic, much less proof, your spinning is merely a futile attempt to obfuscate that fact.

NT, could you describe the principles of scientific proof? Can you quote some philosophers of science on the subject?

I'm quoting from the Karl Popper web, not Popper himself here.

The notion that science offers proof is now only advanced by popular treatments of science on TV and in (many) newspapers - most journalists (with a few important exceptions) are sadly completely devoid of theoretical knowledge: a side-effect of overspecializing on the immediate moment. But then, anyone can improve.

This is just too easy. The climate models that the junk scientists are using as the ONLY basis for their claim of anthropogenic global warming are not valid because they can't even replicate the changes in the climate in the past 30 years. A model that can't even replicate the past certainly can't predict the future.

As Borgia has shown, this is downright false. But you didn't answer the quesion. Why, on principle, should models not be used as evidence? If they are to be used, what principles should apply?

If you answer these questions, then perhaps we can proceed.

Naturalized-Texan

05-31-2006, 01:53 PM

Do these meet your criteria?
No. See Climate Model Scorecard (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=24067). When I read those links, I see the same kind of uncertainties that I see in the claims of the junk scientists. In fact, in the brochure, they stated that they used "hypothetical conditions" to conduct the test.

DoctorDoom

05-31-2006, 01:58 PM

<table bgcolor="red" cellpadding="2"><tr><td><div align="center"><font face="Verdana" color="white" size="5"><b>SAVAGE MODE ON</b></font></font></div></td></tr></table>

Will you clueless ecowackos kindly cut the bullshit and address my list of points that you have thusfar zealously ignored?

You dimbulbs claim that humans are causing global warming. Let's for the sake of argument give a tiny bit of credence to that pseudoscientific crap. The list asks what we can do about it, what it will cost, how we can do it, etcetera. If you loonies what ANY credibility, you will respond to the list.

If you continue to ignore the list, you will certify that you are nothing but annoying, ignorant liberal pissants and that you are here solely to troll.

Pull your heads out of AlBore's ass and provide the information. Your mantras are becoming really f**king boring.

Get to it, twits.

<table bgcolor="green" cellpadding="2"><tr><td><div align="center"><font face="Verdana" color="white" size="5"><b>SAVAGE MODE OFF</b></font></font></div></td></tr></table>

Naturalized-Texan

05-31-2006, 02:11 PM

Doc: They will never provide any proof because they know that no such proof exists. Until and unless there is absolute proof that humans are causing global warming, there is nothing that we can do or should do anything about it but sit back and enjoy it. We both know that the real goal of leftist junk scientists and the leftist kooks who believe them is to destroy the United States of America and their motive is jealousy.

Nutrider99

05-31-2006, 02:24 PM

Spin! Spin! Spin! You are spinning so fast that you are drilling a hole for yourself that will soon reach the core of the Earth. You forget that I studied and taught science and I know very well that there certainly is such a thing as scientific proof and SO DO YOU.
N.T.

Surely you know that for people brought up in a moral relativist world that absolutes like truth, lies, good or evil do not exist. These are people who claim tornados can assemble 747's and will tell you with a straight face that it is a scientifically sound theory that the universe was actually crapped out of the ass of another universe. These are people for whom the foolishness of Darwin is the Gospel and for whom the Gospel is merely a collection of myths and fairy tales. These are semi-educated children who never had a phonics class, and do not remember a president before Reagan. These are spoiled rotten self centered brats for whom the majority of their existence was spend in front of a TV or video game. These are people who shamelessly recite science they can't understand.

How can you, a simple science teacher, expect to be as intelligent and well educated as they?

Naturalized-Texan

05-31-2006, 03:53 PM

No matter how accurate models are (or aren't), models can't be used as proof, or even as evidence, because models can be, and are, manipulated to get the results the user wants. Of course, since the junk scientists who pretend that global warming is anthropogenic are leftists who are beholden to the UN, they have a vested interest in manipulating the climate models to come up with just that result. In other words, GIGO, or more accurately, SISO (shit in, shit out).

sunsettommy

05-31-2006, 04:19 PM

From Climate Science,

May 29, 2006

Excerpt:

Are Multi-Decadal Global Climate Simulations Hypotheses? Have They Been Tested, and, If So, Have the Hypotheses As Represented By the Models, Been Falsified? (http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/05/29/are-multi-decadal-global-climate-simulations-hypotheses/)

Filed under: Climate Models (http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/category/climate-models/) — Roger Pielke Sr. @ 7:05 am
On the Climate Science weblog for May 25 2006, the subject of whether the multi-decadal global climate simulation are predictions or projections was presented (see (http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/05/25/what-is-the-difference-between-a-multi-decadal-climate-projection-and-a-multi-decadal-climate-prediction/)), and a number of valuable comments on it are posted.

This weblog asks a related question. Are the multi-decadal global model simulations hypotheses?

A hypothesis is defined as (from (http://www.answers.com/topic/hypothesis)),

“A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.”
The definition of a “model” as used in mathematics and physics include the following;

“Mathematical use of data to project experimental results. A small imitation of the real thing; a system of postulates, data, and inferences presented as a mathematical description of an entity or state of affairs.” (from (http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/05/29/are-multi-decadal-global-climate-simulations-hypotheses/www.knowledgebank.irri.org/glossary/Glossary/M.htm))

‘In science, a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modeled. Whether models are heuristic devices or essential features of scientific explanation is a matter of debate. Mathematical models are interpretations of a formal system assigning truth values to the formulae of the system, thus testing the system for consistency.” (from (http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/05/29/are-multi-decadal-global-climate-simulations-hypotheses/www.filosofia.net/materiales/rec/glosaen.htm))

The American Meteorological Society defines a “model” (http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?p=1&query=model&submit=Search) as
“model—A tool for simulating or predicting the behavior of a dynamical system like the atmosphere.

Models can be based on subjective heuristic methods, statistics (see statistical dynamical model, model output statistics), numerical methods (see numerical forecasting), simplified physical systems (see dishpan experiments), analogy (see analogs), etc. The term is now most commonly applied to numerical models.”

A 1997 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society paper that discusses this issue is “Measurements, Models, and Hypotheses in the Atmospheric Sciences” (http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0477(1997)078%3C0399:MMOHIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2)by David A. Randall, and Bruce A. Wielicki.

The abstract of the paper states,

‘Measurements in atmospheric science sometimes determine universal functions, but more commonly data are collected in the form of case studies. Models are conceptual constructs that can be used to make predictions about the outcomes of measurements. Hypotheses can be expressed in terms of model results, and the best use of measurements is to falsify such hypotheses. Tuning of models should be avoided because it interferes with falsification. Comparison of models with data would be easier if the minimum data requirements for testing some types of models could be standardized.”

(More)

http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/05/29/are-multi-decadal-global-climate-simulations-hypotheses/

Worth reading it all.

It makes it clear that multi-decadal global climate prediction models are unable to accurately simulate the linear trends of surface and tropospheric temperatures for the 1979-1999 time period on the regional and tropical zonally-averaged spatial scale.

Naturalized-Texan

05-31-2006, 05:32 PM

sunsettommy: Your links time out every time I try them.

RayChuang

05-31-2006, 09:25 PM

You dimbulbs claim that humans are causing global warming. Let's for the sake of argument give a tiny bit of credence to that pseudoscientific crap. The list asks what we can do about it, what it will cost, how we can do it, etcetera. If you loonies what ANY credibility, you will respond to the list.
If the global warming crowd can do a complete point-by-point answering of what you suggest without turning in a bunch of emotionally unhinged people then I might just listen. But since the chance of that happening has about the odds of a ice cube surviving in a blast furnance, now you know why I don't believe them. :tongue:

markus3622

06-01-2006, 02:41 AM

I went to the model scorecard, and looked at the first box.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width=624><TBODY><TR><TD class=table1column1 style="BORDER-TOP: 0.013in solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.033in; BORDER-LEFT: 0.013in solid; PADDING-TOP: 0.013in" vAlign=top width="25%">Type of prediction

</TD><TD class=table1column2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 0.013in solid; BORDER-TOP: 0.013in solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.033in; BORDER-LEFT: 0.013in solid; PADDING-TOP: 0.013in" vAlign=top width="75%">1900-2000 surface temperature trend

</TD></TR><TR><TD class=table1column1 style="BORDER-TOP: 0.013in solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.033in; BORDER-LEFT: 0.013in solid; PADDING-TOP: 0.013in" vAlign=top width="25%">Model prediction

</TD><TD class=table1column2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 0.013in solid; BORDER-TOP: 0.013in solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.033in; BORDER-LEFT: 0.013in solid; PADDING-TOP: 0.013in" vAlign=top width="75%">1.1 to 3.3 C warming if all greenhouse gases are included (IPCC 2001)

</TD></TR><TR><TD class=table1column1 style="BORDER-TOP: 0.013in solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.033in; BORDER-LEFT: 0.013in solid; PADDING-TOP: 0.013in" vAlign=top width="25%">Actual measurements

</TD><TD class=table1column2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 0.013in solid; BORDER-TOP: 0.013in solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.033in; BORDER-LEFT: 0.013in solid; PADDING-TOP: 0.013in" vAlign=top width="75%">Surface temperature warming of 0.6 C

I then looked at the IPCC report.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/fig8-15.gif

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Of course, there's no prediction in the IPCC report of 20th Century increases of 1.1 to 3.3C. Warwick Hughes lied. I wonder why I'm not surprised. The models appear to work quite well. (The blue line is the real data), or at least close to the 0.6C increase. Please note, these aren't the most accurate models out there.

Doc, I've admitted I don't know the answer to your questions (but it's a different topic). It involves emitting less CO2, but I don't know how much it will cost. Unless we agree on the scientific evidence, it's pointless here discussing the remedies.

NT, you've admitted that models can't be used in science. I think you'll find that runs against scientific practice. Science is itself a collection of models (some of which are coded up). It is completely unreasonable to rule out models. Scientific agencies spend millions creating accurate models of every scientific imaginable phenomenon out there.

You might wish to argue with individual models, but you need to present some decent reasons to overturn modern science and rule out models in principle.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/models-science

Back to scientific proof. Can you outline some principles of what defines scientific proof? Where was Popper wrong? Who argues for scientific proof? What does it constitute? How does it differ from evidence?