Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Here comes the next ice age (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Here comes the next ice age
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Which is why we point out Kyoto is seriously flawed. It was a political statement, instead of a scientific statement.

If you declare Global Warming to be the single greatest threat to humanity and then propose that the United States must cut its emission levels to a certain level that offsets not only the USA's impact but also China's impact- yet China does not have to cut its existing emission levels, then one must assume that the USA is being told to counteract the inability of a country of 1 billion people to take responsibility for its global impact.

Time for a new Kyoto. One that says everyone must meet a certain threshold, equally. And while countries like India, China, and Indonesia refuse to control their own emissions, we go on to looking at our own impacts and constructively mitigate those impacts.

We know old coal fire plants cause problems. We replace them with new coal fire plants, nuclear plants, or solar arrays. E know hydrgen fuel cell cars would be best, so that is what we build.

We don't wait for China/India/Indonesia to get on board. We do something proactive. When they realize we are solving the problem of our own pollution, maybe they will realize they have to also solve their pollution problem if they want to stay in the economic pool. If the USA passed a law that said any electricity used to manufacture a product must come from 50% non-polluting power generation facility, then how long would China go before it replaced its coal fired plants?

Kyoto was a dreadful political statement. Summarized, it says the world faces global warming, and while the rest of the world continues developing its economies as it sees fit to do, the United States will dramatically cut its economic development, spend billions to mitigate world-wide climate change, & provide cash to all other nations so they can first become as advanced as the USa before they begin mitigating their own pollution problems.

Some of these nations will need centuries to catch up with the USA economy and infrastructure. By then even if the USA has reverted to hunter/gatherers- the pollution from the rest of the world will have driven humanity into extinction.

It doesn't kill us to change a light-bulb. But Kyoto essentially told the USA that it had to not only change the lightbulb, but ration electricity & give money to other countries so that they could install arc lights on every street corner that run 24/7.

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
Which is why we point out Kyoto is seriously flawed. It was a political statement, instead of a scientific statement.

Nearly every "solution" is similarly political or flawed. As you stated earlier, the science is in it's infancy yet we're told we need to rush headlong into the solutions. Specious solutions to half baked science is risky at best and potentially disastrous.

quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
We don't wait for China/India/Indonesia to get on board. We do something proactive. When they realize we are solving the problem of our own pollution, maybe they will realize they have to also solve their pollution problem if they want to stay in the economic pool.

This is naive. When we do "something proactive" it will cause economic costs that other nations will not have to bear and we lose competitive advantages. When they realize they have a chance at becoming economically superior to us, they will push that advantage. Crippling our economy is far from an incentive for others to do the same.


quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
Summarized, it says the world faces global warming, and while the rest of the world continues developing its economies as it sees fit to do, the United States will dramatically cut its economic development, spend billions to mitigate world-wide climate change, & provide cash to all other nations so they can first become as advanced as the USa before they begin mitigating their own pollution problems.

Some of these nations will need centuries to catch up with the USA economy and infrastructure. By then even if the USA has reverted to hunter/gatherers- the pollution from the rest of the world will have driven humanity into extinction.

It doesn't kill us to change a light-bulb. But Kyoto essentially told the USA that it had to not only change the lightbulb, but ration electricity & give money to other countries so that they could install arc lights on every street corner that run 24/7.

And there you have it, that's what it's all about. Bringing down the USA.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2

The point is, for every link you provide- there is another link equally as compelling that contradicts your link. It doesn't matter if you start the thread or LR starts the thread. Whatever either of you come up with, the other can counter.

Meaning no matter what either side says, the state of the science is immature. 30 years ago the theory was we were all going to be freezing by 2000. Right now the theory is 30 years from now the globe will be so hot that Antarctica Hotel resorts will all be clothing optional.

I honestly think people in their teens & twenties who took highschool classes that preach Global Warming are as absolutely sure of the theory as I was 20 years ago when I was taking Global Cooling courses. It doesn't mean that AGW scientists are evil. It doesn't mean their opponents are as pure as new fallen snow.

But in terms of Ornery, recognize that the person sitting across the table from you may only be looking at information that supports only one point of view. A lot of people here probably are completely ignorant of what climatologists were saying 30 years ago. I remember one PBS special where some climatologist was saying that the 1980's were the beginning of the end since each year was colder than the last and by 2000 many of our interstates in the northern tier of states would be running under snow tunnels most of the year. That ranks right up there with Al Gore saying that Manhattan and Florida will be gone in thirty years.

Just don't assume that the people on Ornery are intentionally deluded. And for that matter, recognize that even though the overall debate may be heated, none of us are climatologists. We don't know the exceptions to data sets or what an anomaly means in certain context. What seems to be an obvious support for one side of the argument may indeed be a refutation of the argument on only a specific point.

I do think it is a boy scout issue. Put your money where your mouth is. Buy insulation. Buy extremely energy efficient devices. Think about packaging and shipping costs. Think about sustainability. If most of us did- the debate over AGW would essentially vanish because the more energy efficient we are the better that our environment and our economy does.

If someone has to declare that AGW is fact-let them. Science says it probably isn't. Show your side of the argument with your own counterfacts. But don't assume that PC thought has completely turned science on its ear. Most scientists wouldn't fudge data even if it meant cash in their own pocket. Because people disagree with your point of view doesn't mean that the scientists they cite are dirtied by a George Soros conspiracy.

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe I underestimated the threat posed by AGW, Nessie's dead:
quote:
Despite having hundreds of sonar contacts over the years, the trail has since gone cold and Rines believes that Nessie may be dead, a victim of global warming.
It can only be a matter of time before even Bigfoot and the Chupacabra is also threatened with extinction. Reskullvw has convinced me that if I had bought better insulation Nessie may be alive today so I think we should all get out there and spend those tax rebate checks on "green" products and R-49 insulation (or r-50, whatever it takes) before we lose Sasquatch and even the aliens quit visiting in their UFO's.

We're running out of time. On Jan 26, 2006 Al Gore told us we had only 10 years so we're down to just 8. After that, global warming induced rape waves will destroy society. Zombie attacks will increase by just over 32%, perhaps beyond even our ability to repel them. Lizards will undergo sudden sex changes potentially ushering in the age of the Sleestack.

It's basically the end of everything. Damn, if only I'd thought more about packaging and shipping costs this would have all been averted.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mdgann
Member
Member # 2572

 - posted      Profile for mdgann   Email mdgann   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LetterRip said,"Distance from the sun is the biggest driver"

Did anyone ever call LR on this one?
I don't have time right now to read this entire topic.
Actually, angle of the earth to the suns rays has a much "bigger driver". In the summer we are farther from the sun and closer in the winter. In summer the suns rays hit us much more directly and contribute more of their energy to warming the earth than in the winter when we are closer but receive a glancing blow.

Posts: 116 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Red,

quote:

The point is, for every link you provide- there is another link equally as compelling that contradicts your link. It doesn't matter if you start the thread or LR starts the thread. Whatever either of you come up with, the other can counter.

That is most definitely not the case - once he posts something generally I find that it is wrong, post the link showing it fairly conclusively, he ignores the post, and then he jumps to another unrelated topic.

quote:

Meaning no matter what either side says, the state of the science is immature.

Depends on what you mean by 'immature' - if not fully developed then I fully agree. Also there are many areas that people speak well beyond what the science is capable of informing us on with any accuracy.

quote:
30 years ago the theory was we were all going to be freezing by 2000.
That is a common myth but is wrong. For instance see wikipedia

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

and this realclimate post

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

LetterRip

Posts: 7835 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Red,

quote:

The point is, for every link you provide- there is another link equally as compelling that contradicts your link. It doesn't matter if you start the thread or LR starts the thread. Whatever either of you come up with, the other can counter.

That is most definitely not the case - once he posts something generally I find that it is wrong, post the link showing it fairly conclusively, he ignores the post, and then he jumps to another unrelated topic.
You completely ignore everything and occasionally point to partisan blogs that support only your viewpoint and think you made a point? Jeez, I thought the sleestack thing was funny...

I notice you never address the tough questions but routinely cherry pick things you think you can score on - like the Tapping equivocation although I did link back to his own words showing the reality but I notice you have skipped to unrelated topics. It's ok, just forget ... you'll feel better soon.

quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:

quote:
30 years ago the theory was we were all going to be freezing by 2000.
That is a common myth but is wrong. For instance see wikipedia

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

and this realclimate post

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

That's a bit of historical revision. How old were you then - aren't you 20 something? I recall seeing this on the nightly news quite a bit but since you can't link to a 70 era news broadcast it must have never happened. It was all the rage. But it's all been done before:
quote:
LOBAL COOLING: 1890s-1930s

The Times, February 24, 1895
"Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again"
Fears of a "second glacial period" brought on by increases in northern glaciers and the severity of Scandinavia's climate.

New York Times, October 7, 1912
"Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age"

Los Angeles Times, June 28, 1923
"The possibility of another Ice Age already having started ... is admitted by men of first rank in the scientific world, men specially qualified to speak."

Chicago Tribune, August 9, 1923
"Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada."

Time Magazine, September 10, 1923
"The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age."

New York Times, September 18, 1924
"MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age"

GLOBAL WARMING: 1930s-1960s

New York Times, March 27, 1933
"America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise"

Time Magazine, January 2, 1939
"Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right.... weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer."

Time Magazine, 1951
Noted that permafrost in Russia was receding northward at 100 yards per year.

New York Times, 1952
Reported global warming studies citing the "trump card" as melting glaciers. All the great ice sheets stated to be in retreat.

U.S. News and World Report, January 18, 1954
"[W]inters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing."

GLOBAL COOLING: 1970s

Time Magazine, June 24, 1974
"Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Christian Science Monitor, August 27, 1974
"Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster than Even Experts Expect"
Reported that "glaciers have begun to advance"; "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter"; and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool".

Science News, March 1, 1975
"The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed, and we are unlikely to quickly regain the 'very extraordinary period of warmth' that preceded it."

Newsweek, April 28, 1975
"The Cooling World"
"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 10 years from now."

International Wildlife, July-August, 1975
"But the sense of the discoveries is that there is no reason why the ice age should not start in earnest in our lifetime."

New York Times, May 21, 1975
"Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable"

GLOBAL WARMING: 1990s-?

Earth in the Balance, Al Gore, 1992
"About 10 million residents of Bangladesh will lose their homes and means of sustenance because of the rising sea level due to global warming, in the next few decades."

Time Magazine, April 19, 2001
"[S]cientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible."

New York Times, December 27, 2005
"Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming"

The Daily Telegraph, February 2, 2006
"Billions will die, says Lovelock, who tells us that he is not usually a gloomy type. Human civilization will be reduced to a 'broken rabble ruled by brutal warlords,' and the plague-ridden remainder of the species will flee the cracked and broken earth to the Arctic, the last temperate spot where a few breeding couples will survive."

Only this time, it real! REAL I tell you! We got some fancy computer models and a hockey stick graph (don't look to closely at them though), did they have those back then? We got us a consensus™ just like the ones that proved the earth under our feet was permanently fixed (1914), the same consensus among paleontologists that the dinosaurs’ demise was a long, drawn out affair, lasting millions of years (1979), the same consensus among physicians that human disease was spontaneously occurring, due to imbalanced humours (1834), the same as the consensus among astronomers that the heavens were static, the boundaries of the universe constant (1928). Scientific concensus is always right. Always!!

Just ignore the sun and any history before the end of the Little Ice Age and we can protect the consenus™

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2,

you seem to have confused popular press with scientists (also why are your dates from mostly pre 1970? Reds statement was regarding 1970). There was an observed cooling trend based on some limited data, and some scientists thought there might be a global cooling coming (not an unreasonable hypothesis based on the limited data and long term climate process knowledge at that time), but there were no scientific publications reaching such conclusion, and scientific bodies and reports suggested that there wasn't enough data to make such a conclusion with many of the bodies suspecting that warming in the long term was more likely.

There wasn't a theory, there wasn't much more then a couple of untested hypothesis, and an observed trend based on limited data.

If you are arguing that the media is sensationalistic and irresponsible in its reporting on science, then I whole heartedly agree with you.

If you are arguing that some scientists will make unfounded claims to the media, absolutely agree.

If you are arguing that there are many 'pro-AGW' who are uninformed windbags - again, complete agreement.

However my argument is about the state of the actual scientific knowledge, and how it is often being misrepresented (albeit unknowingly) by yourself, amongst others, here.

LetterRip

[ February 15, 2008, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 7835 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LR

As I pointed out to G2, for every web link you provide, he provides one that counters your claim. In some cases you both use peer-reviewed journals. In other cases the two of you use blogs that you each happen to like.

Point is- the science is immature. No one- nowhere can say anything that even remotely approaches a reliable conclusion as to global climate prediction.

I don't care if you are pro/anti AGW. None of you have provided a full working model, or even anything close to a full model of climate. The last time this came up both sides argued over who had the better computer resources and the most accurate model.

As to Global Cooling, I don't think you are 40 something. If you missed out on Carl Sagan talking about Global Cooling, then either you weren't born or you didn't watch much PBS back then.

Of course his argument at the time was that while we were undoubtably headed towards a global cooling event as the new century approached, we were more likely to suffer an atomic weapons induced nuclear winter.

Thing is we have watched this for 7 years. For every link you think delcares the issue resolved, someone else posts something that seems to contradict what you posted. Each side thinks their data and summary findings are the best.

They aren't.

G2

The issue is that is it wiser to innovate and do something proactive- or wait until things ar bad enough to where we can't dismiss a Kyoto like agreement?

Thing is the climate is warming- even though it is ever so slight as to not affect anyone living or liekly to live in the next two centuries. But wouldn't you get pissed if two cetries before, someone had had the option of making minor changes to how they lead their lives so that a couple hundred years in the future, people wouldn't be facing a massive problem? So what if AGW science says Al Goore is right? Big deal. But unlike Gore living in his energy hog mansion and inefficient family farm- you yourself can choose to make changes that most AGW advocates don't do.

Its like arguing over CFC's in Styrofoam. Many people couldn't imagine a world where styrofoam cups didn't exist that weren't made in processes that released CFC's. People SWITCHED to paper and non-CFC styrofoam cups.

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
G2

The issue is that is it wiser to innovate and do something proactive- or wait until things are bad enough to where we can't dismiss a Kyoto like agreement?

How do you know which direction to push? Should we go with the current AGW theories even though they're likely incorrect? Will doing something proactive have any effect whatsoever other than disrupting national economies?

Right now the AGW crowd is worked up over about 100 ppm rise of CO2 in the last century. They want you to ignore everything before the Little Ice Age as if global climate did not occur before that. If you look at the whole picture, you see quite a different story. The earth averages considerably higher temperatures and CO2 levels and has done that without any human input.

Whatever we've done up to this point is indistinguishable from background noise. Anything proactive could be, and likely is, simply cutting off our noses to spite our faces. There is no proof anywhere that anything we do will affect the current trends either positively or negatively. A lot of theories but no proof.

Meanwhile, we got solar variance. Three documented minimums, three *significant* global coolings and the AGW cheerleaders try to ignore that and dismiss anyone mentioning as irrational or too stupid to understand the science despite the clear pattern and the growing body of science establishing a clear link.

quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:

However my argument is about the state of the actual scientific knowledge, and how it is often being misrepresented (albeit unknowingly) by yourself, amongst others, here.


Everything I linked to in this thread is pretty clear and has not been shown to misrepresent anything. Maybe the zombies ...

Solar output has fallen dramatically and there is a very clear link between that and global temperatures. The extent of that link is still debated but it's looking more and more as the primary driver that dwarfs all other inputs.

The CO2 levels have been higher and it's clear that the natural state of the planet is for those levels to be much higher than they are today. The same for temperatures. There is no misrepresentation of any kind there - it's all very well documented. The AGW guys just have to be convinced that global climate began before the Little Ice Age.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 3319

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A lot of scientists are starting to worry that the warming could actually trigger another Little Ice Age. It's theorized by many that the warming before hte LIA caused too much glacial melt, which shut down the global conveyor belt and plunged Europe into cold. Luckily we're warming at a faster rate, so we might make up for it through sheer carelessness.

As someone who frequently supports the solutions and fixes for global warming for reasons that have nothing to do with global warming, I continue to ask: Who cares?

For health, national security, and economic reasons, we should be doing everything we can to reduce waste and consumption of fossil fuels. Global warming is a side issue.

Posts: 728 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"For health, national security, and economic reasons, we should be doing everything we can to reduce waste and consumption of fossil fuels. Global warming is a side issue."

My point exactly.

Consider this. On Monday irrefutable proof comes out that Global Warming is happening, will be catastrophic, and will cause widespread changes that effect humans. Knowing this, shouldn't we be working to maximize our reduction of waste and efficiencies of energy resource uses? At the very least it would likely improve our health, national security, and economic capacities.

Or Consider this. On Monday irrefutable proof comes out that Global Warming is not happening, will have no discernible effect on climate, and won't cause any meaningful change to humans. Knowing this, shouldn't we be working to maximize our reduction of waste and efficiencies of energy resource uses? At the very least it would likely improve our health, national security, and economic capacities.


No matter if either side of the Global Warming issue is right- or even if both sides are wrong- isn't it silly not to be trying to become as technologically proficient as possible to enable less waste, energy independence, and a healthy economy?

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
No matter if either side of the Global Warming issue is right- or even if both sides are wrong- isn't it silly not to be trying to become as technologically proficient as possible to enable less waste, energy independence, and a healthy economy?

These things aren't already being done? A market economy always drives efficiencies (except when governments interfere) and has already created the most technologically proficient society ever seen. We don't need the threats and fear mongering of global warming to do what we're already doing.

What part of the global warming agenda will introduce a more efficient, healthier and higher performing economy? Not carbon taxes. Not regulations that apply only to US industry. The vast majority of solution put forth by the AGW crowd is designed to decrease the US economy by introducing stumbling blocks.

The AGW agenda is not about promoting economic growth or efficiency - at least not for the USA.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's something new from Patrick Michaels. The article originally appeared on December 27, 2007 - nearly 2 months ago. As Michaels states, you can be pretty sure that if a scientific paper appeared in a major journal saying that the planet has warmed twice as much as previously thought, that would be front-page news in every major paper around the planet. I am certain it would have been all over the news - you know it would have.

Michaels and the coauthor of his report, Ross McKitrick, used the hypothesis of adjusting temperature data for socioeconomic variables since those factors affect the quality of the data (read the article for the specifics). Doing this, the data collected now matches up with satellite data (a long time problem for global warming theory).

You'd think the resolution of this apparent inconsistency would garner headlines on every environmentalist website all over the world and it would have been a lead story on the news. You know why it's not? Because they found that the socioeconomic biases "likely add up to a net warming bias at the global level that may explain as much as half the observed land-based warming trend."

As much as half the warming trend is due to poor data. That'll never make the news. No wonder so many people believe AGW, they never hear the whole truth.

[ February 18, 2008, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Give it a month or two, and your opposition will provide an alternative paper.
Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Patrick Michaels

Critique of the paper

Summary? The paper has serious methodological flaws. The conclusion is no good because the data was analzyed really badly.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
or an hour and nine minutes.
Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Its not an alternative paper, red. Its a critique explaining why Michael's paper is worthless.

There's a difference.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes and the person who did the critique on the blog you cited, seems to have little more than his word that he is anything other than a scientists who studies cyclonic systems and happened to contribute to a aper that declared global warming would cause greater and greater hurricanes.

And it seems that someone who may or may not be Patrick Michaels did a rather good job of defending the paper in the blog comments.

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Yes and the person who did the critique on the blog you cited, seems to have little more than his word that he is anything other than a scientists who studies cyclonic systems and happened to contribute to a aper that declared global warming would cause greater and greater hurricanes."

Really?

Before I call you for shody research, why don't you do some?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well first off Paul, your rebuttal to G2's paper is from a blog.

A Blog.

And your citation on his bona-fides is from Wikipedia.

So on both counts, your shoddy research is relying on essentially nothing.

And as to the person who authored your blog critique, so far all I have found is that, aside from not even attempting to identify himself or even present a summary of his area of knowledge, his claim to fame is a commentary from 2004 and a discourse on various Norwegian weather/climate issues going back to the early 1990's.

So how shoddy is my research now?

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://home.broadpark.no/~rbene/ras-publ.html

Would be his own personal representation of his publishings.

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
his claim to fame is a commentary from 2004 and a discourse on various Norwegian weather/climate issues going back to the early 1990's
This would seem to be rebutted by the very link you provided, Red, since the bibliography of just his articles in reviewed journals include (in addition to his Northern European 'specialty') topics such as
  • New Mexico Summertime Clouds
  • Global Sea Surface Temperatures
  • Tropical Instability Waves in the Pacific
  • The effect of El Nino on Intraseasonal Kelvin waves

Posts: 10241 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"And as to the person who authored your blog critique, so far all I have found is that, aside from not even attempting to identify himself or even present a summary of his area of knowledge, his claim to fame is a commentary from 2004 and a discourse on various Norwegian weather/climate issues going back to the early 1990's."

Please note... I said "so far"- and then I found his claimed body of works.

43% of his peer reviewed research concerns either Norway or Northern Europe.

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And on further research, apparently he holds no position of authority at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, and about all I can find out about him so far on their site is that they list his publications along with other junior researchers. Of course my Norsk is rather rusty, so I could be overlooking something.
Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"So how shoddy is my research now?"

Because you said this.

"Yes and the person who did the critique on the blog you cited, seems to have little more than his word that he is anything other than a scientists who studies cyclonic systems and happened to contribute to a aper that declared global warming would cause greater and greater hurricanes."

Where a five second search would demonstrate we don't need to take his word about who he is for anything, since we can, on google, find him, on the second link down, as a senior scientist at the oslo climate group.

If we, instead of google, look at the link of who he is listed on the realclimate site I link to, so it would take even less time, he lists that group, and the norweigan meteorological institute, as affiliations, with convienent links, as well as being a past member of the european meteorological society. He also provides two other affiliations without links, to the Institute of Physics, and American Geophysical Union.

If we follow the link he provides to a list of publications, we find a bibliography of his work, and if we follow that trail, we find that he did indeed publish the works he claimed, and we find that he is lead other on a number of the papers listed.

In fact, there is SUBSTANTIALLY more then his word for it as to who he is, and what he has accomplished.

And finding this out could have been done in about 3 minutes from the link I provided, indicating you made a claim about this person that has the effect of reducing his stature in the eyes of people reading your post, that was not only not true, but indicated you hadn't tried to find out if it was true or not.

As far as my references, yup, the link about Michael's was to wikipedia, and the link to the rebuttal of Michael's paper was to a blog. Of course, online critiques of papers ARE generally going to be to blogs. At least this one was to a blog put out by people working actively in the field, and by someone who has numerous peer reviewed articles published by a variety of publications, several with him as lead author.

I didn't make false claims, though, redskull, like you did.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
First off

He gave no identifications as to who he was other than refer to himself as an author of another paper.

A google search for "R. E. Benestad" which is how he attributed his name on the research paper returns 12,000 hits.

Sorry if you are wiser than I.

My Fifth link returned is lists him simply as a contributing author.

I think we both decided to investigate whom this person was. I of course went so far as to determine not only what he published, where he worked, his speciality- which happens to be precipitation prediction, and his status at his place of employment-which is a junior member.

There is little in his representation, or what can be readily verified about him in terms of research that even begins to place him on the same level of competency as the person G2 sourced.

Its SUBSTANTIALLY a case of your champion being SUBSTANTIALLY less impressive than G2's is.

And that was determined not by a 3 minute quick search, but instead spending just over two hours looking into who this guy you ponied up off of a blog page is.

As to his peer review status, it isn't much, and most of what he has submitted involves subjects outside climatology and instead revolves around metrology and precipitation predictions.

So for the record, the guy on your source who made the blog post, provided almost zero identification either to his identity or his competency. On the blog, he provided zero basis for his expertise, other than his argument. Aside from claiming to be involved with cyclonic theory and hurricane predictions in a GW environment- we otherwise knew nothing about his expertise. So from a email address and a link to an external paper, his post was otherwise devoid of any identification.

You didn't provide any further information on the guy. You just presented a blog, written by an essentially unknown person, that happened to agree with your opinion. Don't be offended because I pointed out the inherent weakness in your shoddy research.

And you need to fully retract the accusation. Absolutely nothing I posted was false.

After you offer the retraction, then consider the fact that the guy who wrote you blog would have the equivalent academic/professional credentials of an AMA certified Meteorologist in the United States. Thats right G2's guy is a climatologist. Everard's guy is a weatherman.

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2,

quote:
You completely ignore everything
Please provide an instance (preferably all instances). Do you mean I don't address sub points after refuting a premise or don't respond to your every point or something else?

If you say the moon is made of cheese, therefore we should be concerned about a mouse invasion - and I show the moon isn't made of cheese, there is no need to bother with a discussion of a mouse invasion.

quote:
and occasionally point to partisan blogs that support only your viewpoint and think you made a point?
Do you mean in this instance? The blog may be partisan but it irrelevant since the blog wasn't being used except in that it quoted the author. The quote was from the author, and it wasn't sought by the site I linked to instead it was a response to an email from an individual unaffiliated with the blog. The email was forwarded to the site that quoted it.

I happened to link to the blog since it was convenient source for the quote.

Also,

quote:
What are we to make of that? When Tapping can speak freely, it's the sun and there is some cause for alarm. When he has the screws put to him by an AGW blog, it was all just a misunderstanding. Yeah, sure it is.
This is why I consider you to have close to zero credibility on this issue - you feel free to make stuff up. The facts directly contradict your bizarre speculation.

quote:
If he's not worried about the sun, why would he be looking forward to a period when "we can all relax"? What state is he in now that he needs to relax from?
First what your article claimed, was

quote:
Tapping says, if the pattern doesn't change quickly, the earth is in for some very chilly weather.
He stated in the article you quote is,

quote:
The Maunder Minimum fell in a period known as the "Little Ice Age", where summers were cool, wet and miserable, and the winters were colder and longer than usual, and we believe decades of reduced solar energy output were responsible. We don't fully understand what makes the Sun follow these activity cycles, or why they turn on and off, but many other stars do it too. The chance of another Maunder Minimum happening now is low. However, when activity starts building again, we can all relax.
There is nothing to imply that a lack of a change 'quickly' is something to be concerned about.

Also 'we can all relax' in a casual article for lay persons doesn't mean there is any sense of worry on the behalf of a scientist.

quote:
Only this time, it real! REAL I tell you!
Ah, arguement by strawman. Well at least you follow the typical pattern - you fail to read the science, or quote those who fail to do so. When it is pointed out to you, jump to the straw man attack.

quote:
We got some fancy computer models and a hockey stick graph (don't look to closely at them though), did they have those back then?
If you understand computer models they aren't particularly fancy, but they produce useful results for things like predicting weather, and climate. They reproduce historical climate with reasonable accuracy, and spontaneously reproduce many interesting climatic features.

The 'hockey stick graph' the original reconstruction from Mann et al, certainly had errors, of course his critics also had errors. Alternative reconstructions still give similar results. So while Mann should be embarrassed about his errors (as should his critics about theres), ultimately it has little impact.

quote:
We got us a consensus™
I'm adequately versed in the assorted sciences that I've no need of a consensus to judge whether the predictions are reasonable, since I can base it on my own readings in the original research.

Some of us can actually read real science papers instead of depending on others to interpret them for us. Some of us are capable of pointing out flaws in others interpretations of science papers.

Argument by strawman is often the resort of those who are incapable of discussing an issue on its merits.

Also regarding not responding to arguments, you stated.

quote:
Compared to the sun, they're a drop in the ocean. If greenhouse gases had as much influence as you think, the late Ordovician period where CO2 levels were 12 times today's levels should not have been an ice age.
Then I explained the substantial misunderstanding on your behalf. You blithely ignored it and skipped to another topic.

quote:
I notice you never address the tough questions but routinely cherry pick things you think you can score on
Which 'tough questions' in particular.

quote:
- like the Tapping equivocation although I did link back to his own words showing the reality but I notice you have skipped to unrelated topics.
It wasn't 'equivocation' - you were reading things into it that aren't there - he views the likelihood of a Maunder Minimum.

LetterRip

[ February 19, 2008, 02:22 AM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 7835 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kelcimer:
It's the Sun, stupid!

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

quote:
Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the sun’s activity is the common thread linking all these baking events.
Look, if other planets in our solar system have been heating up at the same time we have been there's only one common denominator: the sun. Yes, we polute. Yes, we should see about doing something about it. But are we causing global warming? No. No, we are not. It is hubris to think that we are.
I call shenanigans! That whole "a bunch of other places are warming up so clearly global warming's not our fault" thing is junk science, and a bad meme to boot.

Fortunately it's also an old bad meme, so folks who are far smarter than me have had time to explain what's bad about it. Like the folks at Bad Astronomy, who I think we can safely say are only a biased source in the sense that they're biased against crap science.

Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:

Just ignore the sun and any history before the end of the Little Ice Age and we can protect the consenus™

Yeah I know what you mean. These alarmist reports made by people in the 1800s are something that need to be taken seriously when considering modern science. If only we'd undergone some sort of exponentially humungous explosion of science over the last century so we'd be able to objectively say that yes, we have a massively more comprehensive understanding of how things work now . Then we'd at least be able to have a bit of faith in the notion that maybe our predictions are massively more likely to be accurate [Smile]

I mean come on dude, that was halfassed. "Oh Noes! We can't trust science because people used to believe in the four humours, and there was a time before radio astronomy when they didn't even know about the big bang!" That was so half-assed I'm almost expecting you to follow up by declaring that Young Earth Creationism must be true and proving it by picking holes in the work of 18th century geologists.

Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Red,

quote:
As I pointed out to G2, for every web link you provide, he provides one that counters your claim.
You clearly haven't been reading the same threads I have. Feel free to demonstrate this by a link to an actual thread where this is the case.

quote:
In other cases the two of you use blogs that you each happen to like.
Incorrect - I used a direct quote from the scientist to refute his statement. His 'article' was an misinterpretation of a conversation.

quote:
Point is- the science is immature. No one- nowhere can say anything that even remotely approaches a reliable conclusion as to global climate prediction.
Actually very reasonable things can be concluded with some degree of confidence. We can't conclude the exact amount of warming, but we can project an expected temperature range.

quote:
I don't care if you are pro/anti AGW. None of you have provided a full working model, or even anything close to a full model of climate. The last time this came up both sides argued over who had the better computer resources and the most accurate model.
Only one 'side' is doing modeling. We could certainly use more accurate models, but the expectation is that it won't narrow the range much (most of the range is due to the limitations in economic forecasting), it will however provide better ideas of what we can expect on a regional basis.

quote:
As to Global Cooling, I don't think you are 40 something. If you missed out on Carl Sagan talking about Global Cooling, then either you weren't born or you didn't watch much PBS back then.
What should anyone care about what a science fiction writer talked about on PBS?

The quality of the science and the peer reviewed literature is what is of interest not the hysterics of media. You and G2 appear to want to equivocate the two.

quote:
Thing is we have watched this for 7 years. For every link you think delcares the issue resolved, someone else posts something that seems to contradict what you posted.
What 'issue' are you refering to? An anthropogenic impact on climate? Predictions of future climate?

quote:
Each side thinks their data and summary findings are the best.
I'm perfectly willing to reevaluate when new data and science comes to light. There have been a number of interesting alternative hypothesis raised, the cosmic ray flux was one of the most promising, but never panned out. Another interesting idea was the adaptive iris proposal of Lindzen (so far it doesn't appear to be supported).

You seem to assume 'data' and 'findings' that contradict an anthropogenic component induced warming. Feel free to point to reputable sources that show this.

I'm open to the possibility that modern warming is not anthropogenically caused, and that CO2 will have less warming impact then projected.

However I tend to be skeptical of many AGW skeptics since they seem to almost universally start with a conclusion and then try and find theories that can lead to such a conclusion.

As to the political side of things - I disagree with Kyoto and think it was a bad proposal. I think that most AGW supporters don't have adequate understanding of science to be able to conclude what the most accurate scientific view is (as is also the case with AGW opponents).

I think it is reasonable for individuals who don't have adequate background in a scientific area to rely on 'consensus' although even better would be to have a large panel of scientists unassociated with the research to perform an outside evaluation.

G2,

quote:
Solar output has fallen dramatically and there is a very clear link between that and global temperatures.
Great please show your source for that. That isn't the case as far as I'm aware.

quote:
The same for temperatures. There is no misrepresentation of any kind there - it's all very well documented. The AGW guys just have to be convinced that global climate began before the Little Ice Age.
Feel free to cite sources, I don't think you can read any papers on science well enough to know if they support you, refute you, or are just flawed, nor do I think you can judge a critique of a paper.

quote:
A market economy always drives efficiencies (except when governments interfere)
This is a basic misunderstanding of economics - confusing 'ideal markets' with 'real markets' - ideal markets have perfect competition, perfect knowledge by consumers, etc. Lack of perfect competition and perfect knowledge both result in serious inefficiencies. Also expensive and/or long term efficiencies aren't persued since their cost could result in loss of competitiveness or at least are unknown as to how great a return they will provide.

G2,

quote:

Michaels and the coauthor of his report, Ross McKitrick, used the hypothesis of adjusting temperature data for socioeconomic variables since those factors affect the quality of the data (read the article for the specifics). Doing this, the data collected now matches up with satellite data (a long time problem for global warming theory).

Haven't read the paper - it is an interesting hypothesis - a similar proposal was made 5 or 6 (maybe more?) years ago. (The paper claimed that the Russians/USSR would be less dilegent about calibrating and checking temperatures - since most of the warming happens the further north you go, the warming was a spurious result of incompentence/laziness on the part of the Russians - the problem of course was that there is no reason for error to be in one direction and instead the errors should average out due to the large number of samples.) I'll have to read it to see if their paper has the same flaws as the earlier paper or not. - Just searched, can't find the original article online yet - but from descriptions it appears to do the same thing.

Ah found the paper -

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/jgr07/M&M.JGRDec07.pdf

It does look like the same issue - latitude apparently correlates well with their other variable (notice that the vast majority of their dots are clustered near the 50, and -50 lattitude).

If you eliminate the much larger temperature changes near the more extreme lattitudes you can filter out a big chunk of the warming.

quote:
You'd think the resolution of this apparent inconsistency would garner headlines on every environmentalist website all over the world and it would have been a lead story on the news.
Michaels and McKintrick have been involved in a large number of poorly researched and flawed papers on related topics. So taking a wait and see approach is probably reasonable.

It appears that it will be the case yet again where they are in error.

LetterRip

Posts: 7835 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
At RC in the comments it is claimed by Michaels that they account for latitude - glancing through it again, it appears they do so. It is way late now - and my time budget for ornery is up for the week. Will try and have a look again at the paper this weekend.

Other worthwhile critiques at RC - the data set they use for the temperatures is one generally viewed as being of poor quality (in the comments M&M acknowledges this but doesn't expect it to have much impact on the results); they didn't check against ocean temperatures; they throw out hotter data points in the higher latitudes as outliers.

LetterRip

[ February 19, 2008, 05:52 AM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 7835 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"He gave no identifications as to who he was other than refer to himself as an author of another paper."

Look, Greg, this is just so wrong that I'm not sure why I should give you the benefit of the doubt.

Here, let me show you.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=50

There are PLENTY of identifications about who he is within his statement of who he is, a statement made on realclimate, which you can get to by following a link for his name under the heading "contributors."

We find he is a member of the Norweigan Meteorological Institute, Oslo Climate Group, Institute of Physics, and American Geophysical Union. He's also a past member of the European Meteorological Society. All of this information can be verified at the appropriate places.

Now that we've demonstrated that your first claim about this person is totally false, lets move on.

"My Fifth link returned is lists him simply as a contributing author."

Good. But, you could have looked at an entire list of publications that he's put out. Let me show you.

http://home.broadpark.no/~rbene/ras-publ.html

How did I find this? I clicked the link that he tells us takes us to his publications, within the realclimate profile of himself.

We find that in 2007, he published four papers, one as sole author, two as lead author, and one as contributing author. In 2006, he published two papers, one as sole author, and one as lead author. So, my question, Greg, is how did you NOT find that he published 6 papers in the last two years, 2 as sole author, 3 as lead author, and only one as contributing author?

Anyrate, we'll move on, since this statement of yours wasn't outright false. It just indicates you don't follow a trail very well. And, again, all of this information can be verified with the journals in question.

"I think we both decided to investigate whom this person was. I of course went so far as to determine not only what he published, where he worked, his speciality- which happens to be precipitation prediction, and his status at his place of employment-which is a junior member."

Except you didn't find this, Greg. You only found one paper he published, when the fact is that he put out 6 over the last two years, a fairly good output.

Where he worked, you found that he's a member of the oslo climate group, but you did not find that he's a member of the norweigan meteorological institute, and that he puts this attachment on his recent work... and where he is not a junior member, but is senior scientist. If you'd read his work, you would have noticed this.

Also, I'm not sure how you decided his specialty is precipitation prediction. He certainly doesn't claim that, nor do any of the institutes he is affiliated with. Did someone else claim it for him? The oslo climate group claims his specialties as "Empirical downscaling; Climate model evaluation; Solar activity and Earth's climate." Thats not precipitation prediction. Thats exactly what we're talking about. Yes, his papers focus on precipitation over the last two years. That doesn't tell us what his specialty is, though.


As far as who is writing his pay check, most of his funding seems to come through the norweigan meteorological institute, since most of his papers have that listed as his affiliation.

"and his status at his place of employment-which is a junior member."

Since you seem to be referring to oslo climate group here, its worth noting that the oslo climate group does not appear to assign junior and senior statuses to its members, as one can tell by looking at the profile's of all their members. And, of course, it appears that Rasmus Benestad is primarily employed by the Norweigian Meteorological instittude, where he is senior scientist, so this would be another false claim of yours.

"There is little in his representation, or what can be readily verified about him in terms of research that even begins to place him on the same level of competency as the person G2 sourced."

This conclusion appears to be based on false information. Look again, Greg.

"Its SUBSTANTIALLY a case of your champion being SUBSTANTIALLY less impressive than G2's is."

Again, you didn't actually do the necessary legwork to determine this. Michaels is OLDER, which means he has a larger body of work, but Benestad's body of work is impressive for someone his age, and covers all the issues we're discussing.

"And that was determined not by a 3 minute quick search, but instead spending just over two hours looking into who this guy you ponied up off of a blog page is."

And yet... you didn't actually FIND anything Greg, and the stuff that can be found is EASY to find. I'm questioning your research skills, because this is a piss poor demonstration of said skills.

"As to his peer review status, it isn't much, and most of what he has submitted involves subjects outside climatology and instead revolves around metrology and precipitation predictions."

I'm not sure what standard of "much," you are using here, but 6 papers, 3 as sole author and 2 as lead author, over the last two years?

"outside climatology and instead revolves around metrology and precipitation predictions.""

You realize that these are both part of climatology?

Why don't you try reading the abstracts of these papers? Its free...

Also, if you look closely, you'll realize that much of his work deals with statistical analysis... exactly the points he brings up in relation to Michaels paper, so his body of peer reviwed work is preparing him to critique the paper he is critiquing in this instance.

"So for the record, the guy on your source who made the blog post, provided almost zero identification either to his identity or his competency."

For the record, you failed to follow a well-marked trail that would lead you to realize this is simply a false statement.

"On the blog, he provided zero basis for his expertise, other than his argument."

Within the blog post? No, he didn't. But his argument stands on its own two feet, and if we want to know about his expertise, all we need to do is click on the link on the side of the page.

"So from a email address and a link to an external paper, his post was otherwise devoid of any identification."

Of course it was. His POST was. But the website was not. He posts there frequently. Instead of retyping the same **** everytime, he has an "about me" section that is easily accessible to people who want to find out who rasmus benestad is.

"And you need to fully retract the accusation. Absolutely nothing I posted was false."

No, Greg, it was the other direction. After more research, it becomes more apparent that everything you wrote was false.

"After you offer the retraction, then consider the fact that the guy who wrote you blog would have the equivalent academic/professional credentials of an AMA certified Meteorologist in the United States. Thats right G2's guy is a climatologist. Everard's guy is a weatherman."

More stuff greg is only able to say because he didn't do his research.

Sorry, Greg. Consider yourself, as you like to put it, totally destroyed.

The only question left is, whether or not you'll notice?

[ February 19, 2008, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
I'm adequately versed in the assorted sciences that I've no need of a consensus to judge whether the predictions are reasonable, since I can base it on my own readings in the original research.

quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
I don't think you can read any papers on science well enough to know if they support you, refute you, or are just flawed, nor do I think you can judge a critique of a paper.

There it is, in your own words. You're just soooooo smart and everyone else is stupid. Only you and those that support your views are intelligent enough to understand the "science" behind AGW. I guess all the scientists I've linked to, like Patrick Michaels, are also just too stupid to understand such a complex topic as global warming like the brilliant and erudite LetterRip. If only everyone else appreciated your scintillating intellect like you do!

I dunno LR, when the foundation of your argument is that everyone else is just too stupid to understand it sounds like you've run out of anything intelligent to say. But maybe I'm jist two stoopid to unerstend yor brilance. Yor so smart ...

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hey paul

Did you disprove a single fact I posted.

Wait for it....

NO.

Ergo, you should retract your statement.

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And the answer to my question is, apparently, "no."

And the answer to your question is
"yes."

But at this point, thats up to everyone else to decide.

[ February 19, 2008, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Paul

Did he give any indication as to who he was on the page you originally sourced? No.

Did I see a link that said anything about the author that could be found on that websight? No.

Did I find that he is a member of the Norweigan Meteorological Institute, Oslo Climate Group, Institute of Physics, and American Geophysical Union. He's also a past member of the European Meteorological Society? Yes.

Did I find his own representation of what he has published despite not having found the link off of your original website? Yes.

Did I find, and look at the summaries of all the papers he claims to have published, that were also linked by him? Yes.

Did I explicitly state the fact that he worked at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute? Yes.

Did I explicitly state that on the Norwegian Meteorological site that they list his contributions to peer reviewed journals? Yes.

Did I note that they represented him as a junior member? Yes.

Is his speciality, "Empirical downscaling; Climate model evaluation; Solar activity and Earth's climate." adequately represented by the fact that 43% of his published peer reviewed work is based upon Norwegian/Northern Europe precipitation patterns and predictions? Yes.

Did I point out that he is an employee of the Norwegian Meteorological Institute and that they do not list him as head of any department or list him as a senior member? Yes.

Was the identification trail for him well marked? That is a judgement call. You say it was easy to follow. Then again you seem to be aware of him because of his frequent posts on the website you provided. I do not visit the site except for very very infrequently. Therefore, I was unaware of his fame on that site nor the fact that there is an index list. Whatever the case may be as to finding out about who he is, I think my less than conventional approach, by your opinion, revealed the same facts that you found out about him. In fact the only difference in the facts we each found out about him seems to be the methodology. You used an index link, I took a more circuitous path because I was unaware of the index link. Had I known about it, I would have not taken a couple of hours of effort trying to track down his bona-fides.

So what exactly did I write that was false?

Nothing.

So what is this guy's bona-fides? He is a meteorologist in Norway, who attempts to investigate precipitation patterns that relate primarily to Northern Europe. He has published some 29 peer reviewed papers in the last 10 years. And that since December 2004 he has made 32 blog posts on Real Climate. 14 of his 29 peer reviewed publishings deal with precipitation.

Now compare that to G2's source, which G2 also provided a second link as to the man's bona-fides. G2's guy has the following...


Michaels is a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and visiting scientist with the Marshall Institute in Washington, D.C. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. Michaels is a contributing author and reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. His writing has been published in the major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science, as well as in popular serials such as the Washington Post, Washington Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Houston Chronicle, and Journal of Commerce. He was an author of the climate "paper of the year" awarded by the Association of American Geographers in 2004. He has appeared on ABC, NPR's "All Things Considered," PBS, Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, BBC and Voice of America. According to Nature magazine, Pat Michaels may be the most popular lecturer in the nation on the subject of global warming. Michaels holds A.B. and S.M. degrees in biological sciences and plant ecology from the University of Chicago, and he received a Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979.

So? Your guy is a weatherman and G2's guy is a climatologist with some pretty high senior memberships in multiple scientific associations including being "...a contributing author and reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"

Exactly why is your blogging weatherman qualified to offer anything other than opinion?

So yeah you seem to only disagree with the fact I independently discovered who your source is. You didn't disprove a single fact I posted. And at the very least you failed to notice your champion blogger isn't even remotely equivalent to the climatologist g2 brought up.

I guess we will have to see if anyone notices that for research all you did was click on an index link that would only be obvious to someone who frequents the Real Climate website. While I independently did due diligence to establish who he was and what his actual bona-fides were.

So yeah your source, at least insofar as being a viable and credible rebuttal to G2's source is essentially destroyed. I guess you were so worked up in proving I was an idiot researcher blinded you to the fact that I did establish who he was.

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 0Megabyte:
... the amount of CO2 in out atmosphere has increased from ~250 ppm a hundred years ago to over 350 ppm today ...

I've been looking around but can't seem to find it - what is the correct amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? I figure the brilliant minds on this thread would know that answer. Are we supposed to stay at 250 ppm? Is 300 ppm OK?

Another thing I was looking for but cannot seem to locate, what is the correct temperature for the planet? We're around 54° F today which LR, everard, et al assure us is too high and going any higher would result in catastrophe. Should we halt the temperature at 54°? Should it be less? More?

I know there must be answers to these but I Googled around and didn't find it. If present atmospheric CO2 levels are too high and temperatures too hot, then there must be some level and temperature that is the appropriate amount - or at least the acceptable amount.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
With apologies to Redskullvw, I'm going to chop up his post a bit but I think the point remains as he intended.
quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
As to his peer review status, it isn't much, and most of what he has submitted involves subjects outside climatology and instead revolves around metrology and precipitation predictions.

<snip>
... consider the fact that the guy who wrote you blog would have the equivalent academic/professional credentials of an AMA certified Meteorologist in the United States. Thats right G2's guy is a climatologist. Everard's guy is a weatherman.

The response to that is:
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
"outside climatology and instead revolves around metrology and precipitation predictions."

You realize that these are both part of climatology?

A certified meteorologist is basically a weatherman and since there's no objection to referring to everard's source as a weatherman I assume that's an accurate description of him. But that confuses me ... it's not what I've been told by so many. I've always been told this:
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
weather/=climate.

In fact, the AGW proponents in this forum are quite derogatory of the opinions of simple meteorologists (a.k.a. weathermen) :
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
And a local weatherman deciding that global climate change is a hoax is hardly an indication that the overall scientific consensus among the leaders in the field has, or is, changing.

So what should we do? Upgrade this guy to a fully qualified climatologist on par with Michaels? Granting him a level of expertise he hasn't earned seems to be the only way out of this little conundrum ... [LOL]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Did he give any indication as to who he was on the page you originally sourced? No."

yes. There is a link on the page I originally sourced that gives lots of indications as to who he is.

"Did I see a link that said anything about the author that could be found on that websight? No."

Why not? Its pretty obvious.

"Did I find that he is a member of the Norweigan Meteorological Institute, Oslo Climate Group, Institute of Physics, and American Geophysical Union. He's also a past member of the European Meteorological Society? Yes."

Can't tell that from your posts.

"Did I find, and look at the summaries of all the papers he claims to have published, that were also linked by him? Yes."

REally? All of them? He's published a LOT.

"Did I note that they represented him as a junior member? Yes."

He's not a junior member either of the oslo climate group or the norweigan meteorological institute, and they don't claim he is at either place. The norweigan meteorological group, as best I can tell, does not list titles except for their heads of division and members of the board.

In other words, this statement is flat out false.

"Did I point out that he is an employee of the Norwegian Meteorological Institute and that they do not list him as head of any department or list him as a senior member? Yes."

No. You pointed out that he was a junior researcher. Not the case. Its also not the case that they list any senior members.

"Was the identification trail for him well marked? That is a judgement call. You say it was easy to follow."

the blog post was under the name "rasmus." On the right hand side of that page was a heading "contributors." Under the "contributors" heading was the name "Rasmus Benestad." its the only "rasmus" in that relatively short list. Clicking that name brings us to the page that has information about Rasmus Benestad.

I had never seen the contributors section before, but I know enough about reading blogs such as realclimate to know that finding out who the people are who post is easy if one looks for a minute.


"I think my less than conventional approach, by your opinion, revealed the same facts that you found out about him. "

No. It didn't. Much of what you have stated is not true, and much of what you claim to have stated is not apparent from your posts prior to this most recent one.

"So what exactly did I write that was false?"

Quite a bit actually. Lets start with that he's a junior member at the norweigan meteorological institute. Or that he's a weatherman. Or that his area of speciality is precipitation prediction. Or that he hasn't had much peer reviwed. Or that he gave no identification of who he is.

First, he's a senior scientist at NMI, and second, he's a research scientist with numerous published papers and several published books, dealing with a host of topics from scandinavian rainfall to statistical methods to world climate.
his specialties are exactly in the areas of Michaels' paper that he critiques. And he sufficiently identified himself.

Many of your other statements are statements of opinion that would have been refuted by the facts had you adequately discovered them, but they are not outright "False" statements."

"So what is this guy's bona-fides? He is a meteorologist in Norway, who attempts to investigate precipitation patterns that relate primarily to Northern Europe. He has published some 29 peer reviewed papers in the last 10 years. And that since December 2004 he has made 32 blog posts on Real Climate. 14 of his 29 peer reviewed publishings deal with precipitation."

Aside form being a meteorlogist, and most climate researchers are to one degree or another, he's employed by the NMI in the climate division as a snior scientist. In other words, he is employed as a climatologist. His PhD is in atmospheric, oceanic, and planetary physics.

So, no, my guy is not a "weatherman," greg, despite your continuing attempts to show that he is not qualified to comment on a scientific paper. he is extremely qualified to comment on a scientific paper, and especially on the statistical methods( as much of his research is closely related to statistical methods for climate prediction), used within that paper, which is what he did.

"Exactly why is your blogging weatherman qualified to offer anything other than opinion?"

Because he's a scientist practicing and doing research in the field that the paper is in. Not a weatherman.

"So yeah you seem to only disagree with the fact I independently discovered who your source is. You didn't disprove a single fact I posted. And at the very least you failed to notice your champion blogger isn't even remotely equivalent to the climatologist g2 brought up."

Greg, I don't NEED to rely on "who is more important." I can look at these papers and critiques and understand why a paper comes under fire and judge on my own whether or not the critique is valid. And, who is more impressive doesn't tell us who is right.

Michaels has had an impressive career. I don't deny that. He's ALSO had numerous highly pointed methodological critiques of his climate work scattered through his career. His work has been sneered at as not being of distinction by other american climatologists, and has been accused of lying about climate models by climate scientists. He's also been on the wrong end of several debates on planetary systems, especially in recent years.

His area of interest has also been, since this seems to be a hot topic for you, the affects of climate on agriculture.

Michael's is widely known because he's one of the few climate scientists who doesn't think global warming will be a problem.
The paper that Michael's won paper of the year for was showing how urban heat may increase life expectency.

But the thing is, the important thing is, that the paper this discussion is about, had serious methodological flaws in it. And those flaws are completely independent of who wrote the paper, and who pointed out the flaws.

But you've been engaged, since I posted the link, in slandering and misrepresenting the person who critiqued the paper...

You haven't demonstrated that the critique is wrong, and neither did Michaels or McKitrick. (And I'm sure I just butchered that name).

Lets be clear here:

The critique lays out a few basic problems.

1) Their data analysis does not properly take into account dependency between data points. Benestad shows that the temperature trends show high spatial correlation. M and M do not take into account that spatial correlation.

2) They used very old (1974) data rather then using updated data for certain of their calculations.

3) They've over fit their regression analysis, which leads them to show that the places which need the highest temperature corrections due to economic activity are in the artic and antarctic. It should be highly suspect when places with low economic activity end up, according to your analysis, with teh highest corrections due to economic activity

4) They don't compare their results to the oceans, which are also warming, and where there is no economic activity. Thus, the oceans would have made a good control.

5) They did not use multiple warming trend data, instead apparently cherry picking the data that shows the lowest trend, and which data has been criticized elsewhere. A better technique would have been to apply their analysis to several data sets.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1