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 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Here comes the next ice age
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Heck, G2's own post is looking at two different data subsets... and once again cherry picking them. It can be claimed that the temperatures over the past decade have plateaued, but when in one post G2 characterizes temperatures as consistently declining over a 10 year period, then once again quotes from someone using 1998 as a starting point, well, you have to applaud how consistent he is in his misrepresentations.

Whoa, got a little woozy from you spin. And that's all you got here is spin. the facts are the facts and the facts contradict you and all the rest of the warmists. But you can whine like this all you want about me, the truth is coming out and the fact that AGW theory got it wrong is being discussed at even among the inner circle:
quote:
... Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and other scientists discuss gaps in understanding of recent variations in temperature. Skeptic Web sites pointed out one line in particular: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” Dr. Trenberth wrote.
Ohh those hacked emails. Devastating.

quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Take the word 'consistent' - even choosing the relatively warm year of 2002 as a starting point, there were 3 years since then that exceeded the average temperature anomaly for that year.

And how many years did these great computer models show anything other than ever increasing temperatures significantly higher than what has been measured? Why do you still believe them and insist other do as well? Once empirical evidence contradicts the theory, we generally throw out the theory. Why are you holding onto it even though it's demonstrably false?

quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
If choosing 2001 instead of 2002 as the starting point, then 8 of the past 10 years were warmer; if choosing either 1999 or 2000, then every year since then has been warmer. It's only by selecting a good starting point that his claim can be made even partially accurate.

2001 was chosen since it is the last year for a decade long measurement that demonstrates current trends. Perhaps you would prefer to use data ending in 1998?

quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
I won't even get into the uselessness of quoting someone who uses 1998 as a starting point while analyzing a decades-long trend. But it is interesting that G2 was silent at the end of 2010, a year that basically tied for the warmest ever during the instrumental record, but only a year later is claiming that temperatures are dropping "consistently". [Smile]

How often do you need me to update this? Is it monthly? Weekly? You think that if I don't post often enough, that means it can't be true. [Roll Eyes] Are logical fallacies like argumentum ad nauseam that ingrained in your thought processes?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
You get an A for research and for putting together the headline timeline.

It was James P Hogan, you can see it here. Hogan has written a lot of stuff that demonstrates just how much of a hoax AGW really is.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Fortunately, there is a simply rebutal to G2's argument.

Consider this chart of the global land-ocean temperatures since 1880, and answer three simple questions.

1. Has average temperatures increased since 1880?

Do you know why you're stuck on 1880? Why was that date chosen as the starting point? It was the end of the Little Ice Age. Do you think it's a coincidence you chose (actually been fed) the idea that this should all start at one of the coldest eras of our current ice age? Did you even know we're in the midst of an ice age right now? Just curious ...

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
2. Has there ever been a decade and a half between 1880 and 2011 when temperatures have decreased, perhaps even more than the current decade?

More importantly, where in the theory did it predict a decade and half of flat to cooling temperatures? Comb through the IPCC reports and show us the section where it states anything other than consistent long term warming.
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:

3. Considering the answers to 1 and 2, does the current mild downward trend of temperatures conclusively prove that global warming has stopped?

You seem to think that the mild upward trend from the little ice age to 1998 proved the theory. Now when the trend reverses it suddenly is no longer proof? Yeah ...
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:

Hopefully, this is the beginning of a long term trend, although I would like to see a much deeper decrease. But it is still too early to tell.

That is crazy. If you think cooling is preferable, then you don't understand what that may mean.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

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

Hopefully, this is the beginning of a long term trend, although I would like to see a much deeper decrease. But it is still too early to tell.

That is crazy. If you think cooling is preferable, then you don't understand what that may mean.
I don't think he meant that global cooling would be better than global warming. I think he meant that it would be nice if the current trend would head downward for a while to offset some of the late 20th century rise.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How reliable is the data behind the latest G2 post? Here's a reaction to the article he surfed and deposited here:
quote:
“Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again),” the Daily Mail says. “Global warming trend ended in 1997, new data shows,” the Washington Times promotes.

This is strange, since temperature data and NASA scientists show the 2000s to be the warmest decade in recorded history, significantly hotter than the 1990s.

As it turns out, the Daily Mail’s David Rose concocted the “entirely misleading” story by cherry-picking from two different press releases from the UK Met Office. The first press release said that low solar activity would not counteract global warming from greenhouse gases — the second that 2012 will be much warmer than the 20th century average because of global warming.

Rose deliberately ignored the science, cherrypicked data, and quoted scientists on the fringe of reality. By excluding as many actual facts as possible, Rose came to the conclusion that global warming stopped years before the warmest decade in recorded history.

The Daily Mail is controlled by right-wing British billionaire Jonathan Harmsworth, Viscount Rothermere.

Answer: As reliable as ever.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  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:
Originally posted by G2:
Whoa, got a little woozy from you spin.

Well, you are being spun, but it isn't by me... Aside from your almost knee-jerk attempts at misdirection when the flaws in your posts are pointed out to you, I'm beginning to understand that in this particular area, and your assumed persona notwithstanding, you seem honestly to not see the logical failures in your own argument; you sincerely don't understand the mistakes that you consistently repeat every time you bring up the subject.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For those interested in the science of AGW, Skeptical Science recently published an article that outlines various major studies that point to humans causing the recent rise in temperature. A good read.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While admitting up front that this is (perhaps...) a bit below-the-belt, I'd like to present Wikipedia's summary of James P. Hogan's views on other matters.

quote:
In his later years, Hogan's views tended towards those widely considered "fringe" or pseudoscientific. He was a proponent of Immanuel Velikovsky's version of catastrophism,[3] and of the hypothesis that AIDS is caused by pharmaceutical use rather than HIV (see AIDS denialism).[4] He stated that he found basic evidence of evolution's being random to be lacking — or to disprove the theory outright,[5] though he didn't propose theistic creationism as an alternative. Hogan was skeptical of the theories on climate change and ozone depletion.[6]

Hogan also espoused the idea that the Holocaust didn't happen in the manner described by mainstream historians, writing that he found the work of Arthur Butz and Mark Weber to be "more scholarly, scientific, and convincing than what the history written by the victors says."[7] Such theories were seen by many[who?] to contradict his views on scientific rationality; he repeatedly stated that these theories held his attention due to the high quality of their presentation — a quality he believed established sources should attempt to emulate, rather than resorting to attacking their originators.[citation needed]

In March 2010, in an essay defending Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel, Hogan stated that the mainstream history of the Holocaust includes "claims that are wildly fantastic, mutually contradictory, and defy common sense and often physical possibility."[8]

He seems to have a thing for revisionism.
Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe he just likes betting on the long shot so that if he ever IS correct he can do a massive "I told you so" dance?
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While Hogan may be drawn to revisionism, it really doesn't have anything to do with what he says.

It is a good example, though, of the fact that even though you can find weaknesses in your opponent's arguments, it does not mean that you are right. [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
Whoa, got a little woozy from you spin.

Well, you are being spun, but it isn't by me... Aside from your almost knee-jerk attempts at misdirection when the flaws in your posts are pointed out to you, I'm beginning to understand that in this particular area, and your assumed persona notwithstanding, you seem honestly to not see the logical failures in your own argument; you sincerely don't understand the mistakes that you consistently repeat every time you bring up the subject.
Your only problem is the facts. But for those, you would be right. Unfortunately, for you, you're not entitled to your own facts. I think you don't know that temperatures have declined. Somehow, you see it and just *snap* you just don't know it any more. This is a manifestation of blackwhite it seems, or at least near pathological denial. It's truly freaky to see an otherwise normal human being do these kinds of things, it generally only happens in cults ...

CO2 has risen all this time, all AGW dogma says this must increase temperatures. Computer models, eco-soothsayers, etc. pound out the message that CO2 is the primary driver in global temperatures. If CO2 goes up, so must temperatures. But it's not happening. You might want to review that ... it's not happening.

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


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:

Hopefully, this is the beginning of a long term trend, although I would like to see a much deeper decrease. But it is still too early to tell.

That is crazy. If you think cooling is preferable, then you don't understand what that may mean.
I don't think he meant that global cooling would be better than global warming. I think he meant that it would be nice if the current trend would head downward for a while to offset some of the late 20th century rise.
I believe he has said that before though ... I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure it was someone around here who thought cooling would be good news. That being said, almost all if not all the late 20th century rise has been offset already.

Global temperatures have always been in flux. Always. SO has CO2. Man had had nothing to do with it. Rates of change in these have been proven to occur as quickly as current rates of change. Nothing new or even remotely unusual has happened.

Right now, the planet is at historic temperature lows and CO2 levels are among the lowest ever recorded in planetary history (now at about 390ppm, at around 280ppm, plant life will die off). If either of these decline, we're in for far worse than the tropical paradise the warmist cult believes awaits the enviro-sinner.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think you don't know that temperatures have declined. Somehow, you see it and just *snap* you just don't know it any more.

I think it would behoove you to read the posts above more carefully. You share many attributes with Ron Lambert, G2, so I have little hope that this will happen, but at least it wouldn't require you to jettison your religious faith to re-examine your sources with more rigor.

[ February 01, 2012, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Historic lows? Declined? Not according to NASA.

View graphs here

NASA concludes:

quote:
Summary
2011 was only the ninth warmest year in the GISS analysis of global temperature change, yet nine of the ten warmest years in the instrumental record (since 1880) have occurred in the 21st century. The past year has been cooled by a moderately strong La Niña. The 5-year (60-month) running mean global temperature hints at a slowdown in the global warming rate during the past few years. However, the cool La Niña phase of the cyclically variable Southern Oscillation of tropical temperatures has been dominant in the past three years, and the deepest solar minimum in the period of satellite data occurred over the past half dozen years. We conclude that the slowdown of warming is likely to prove illusory, with more rapid warming appearing over the next few years.

Is NASA entitled to "their" facts?

[ February 01, 2012, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: KidTokyo ]

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The only people more committed to their beliefs than some AGW skeptics are evangelicals and more committed to their facts are Wall St. traders.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.

The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.

The study is the first to survey all the world's icecaps and glaciers and was made possible by the use of satellite data. Overall, the contribution of melting ice outside the two largest caps – Greenland and Antarctica – is much less then previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and the other high peaks of Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy.

Bristol University glaciologist Prof Jonathan Bamber, who was not part of the research team, said: "The very unexpected result was the negligible mass loss from high mountain Asia, which is not significantly different from zero."

yeah.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don’t care who’s right as long as we can fund research into the ability to cool or warm a planet as needed. The longer the “debate” goes the more concrete the science will become. The better our understanding the better the innovations. In this instance I cheer for the kooks on both ends of the seesaw.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  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 
And what did the rest of the article say, G2?

I find it interesting that you didn't point out that the article demonstrates scientists' willingness to revise their previous knowledge and claims... while still ignoring the other quotes that don't support your regular memes.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Were you thinking of this quote from the Guardian article, Donald?

quote:
However, the scientist who led the new work is clear that while greater uncertainty has been discovered in Asia's highest mountains, the melting of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a serious concern.

"Our results and those of everyone else show we are losing a huge amount of water into the oceans every year," said Prof John Wahr of the University of Colorado. "People should be just as worried about the melting of the world's ice as they were before."

His team's study, published in the journal Nature, concludes that between 443-629bn tonnes of meltwater overall are added to the world's oceans each year. This is raising sea level by about 1.5mm a year, the team reports, in addition to the 2mm a year caused by expansion of the warming ocean.

The scientists are careful to point out that lower-altitude glaciers in the Asian mountain ranges – sometimes dubbed the "third pole" – are definitely melting. Satellite images and reports confirm this. But over the study period from 2003-10 enough ice was added to the peaks to compensate.

Or this?

quote:
Wahr warned that while crucial to a better understanding of ice melting, the eight years of data is a relatively short time period and that variable monsoons mean year-to-year changes in ice mass of hundreds of billions of tonnes. "It is awfully dangerous to take an eight-year record and predict even the next eight years, let alone the next century," he said.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Or maybe this:
quote:
One of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist, decided to author a climate science skeptical book together with geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Vahrenholt’s skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”

Vahrenholt decided to do some digging. His colleague Dr. Lüning also gave him a copy of Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. He was horrified by the sloppiness and deception he found. Persuaded by Hoffmann & Campe, he and Lüning decided to write the book. Die kalte Sonne cites 800 sources and has over 80 charts and figures. It examines and summarizes the latest science.

Conclusion: climate catastrophe is called off

That's their emphasis ... [LOL]

quote:
Germany’s flagship weekly news magazine Der Spiegel today also featured a 4-page exclusive interview with Vahrenholt, where he repeated that the IPCC has ignored a large part of climate science and that IPCC scientists exaggerated the impact of CO2 on climate. Vahrenholt said that by extending the known natural cycles of the past into the future, and taking CO2′s real impact into effect, we should expect a few tenths of a degree of cooling.
We should expect a few tenths of a degree of cooling!

The hoax is unraveling faster and faster ... [Big Grin]

[ February 08, 2012, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

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 
What about Vahrenholt's argument do you find so persuasive - that is, aside from the fact that his conclusions are agreeable to your position?

And how do you think he came up the cooling prediction - did he use some kind of model?

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think you do G2 too much credit by assuming that he's read Vahrenholt's book. [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Come to think of it, I have noticed that it's been cooler the past few months. Not cold enough to snow here in Michigan, but cooler than it was back in September. I wonder if G2 might be onto something here. And thank God that there is at least one scientist out of the 1000's that have studied the problem who will stand up for the truth. Ok, he's not a real scientist, but he used to work with some. But he is a real Professor of Chemistry, even if it's an honorary appointment. All in all, his words carry a certain amount of weight.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*grin* I was going to comment on having a politician (and former Shell board member) and a geologist pass judgment on the methodology of climatologists, but I thought maybe that would be too subtle for some people to understand. [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why respond to G2? He does't respond beyond the level of "I'm rubber, you're glue." What's the point? He's not here to have a conversation -- he's just happy people are paying attention to him with such urgency. Stop feeding the beast.
Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, he long ago declared that he has a browser tool that filters out my posts, so I'm not responding to him. I don't suspect anybody else here thinks they're corresponding with him, either. I think of him as a practice target for witty remarks I hope one day to make directly to someone like Newt Gingrich during a 3 hour Lincoln-Douglas style debate. I will play Lincoln, Newt will likely play g2.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Someone needs to tell the Burpee seed catalog folks that it's just their imagination and that it was a mistake to revise all of their hardiness temperature zones northward because plants were consistently not growing properly under the older, cooler assumptions.

The swarm of brown stinkbugs that's infesting Pittsburgh because it's no longer too cold for them to survive here also seem to have missed the memo.

[ February 09, 2012, 07:43 AM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
At least one scientist is tracking climate change by counting the roadkill of muskrats and other critters as it moves northward. The Monroe Michigan muskrat cookoff gets bigger and bigger every year...
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
I don’t care who’s right as long as we can fund research into the ability to cool or warm a planet as needed. The longer the “debate” goes the more concrete the science will become. The better our understanding the better the innovations. In this instance I cheer for the kooks on both ends of the seesaw.

That's one of the most useful remarks that I've seen in this whole debate. This is all very useful research for terraforming. And regardless of whether human tech has or hasn't played a part in certain recent climate changes, it's useful to ask how we might affect it, for our own needs. Clearly the history of the planet suggests that temperatures are going to go back up at some point, which means we need to look at what we might do to stabilize things, maintain homeostasis in order to save our own species and the life that we've grown accustomed to.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This illustrates my biggest complaint about AGW deniers. Usually they throw up their hands and say, "Climate is too complex for us to understand. We don't know how it works, and never will. But we know that we aren't affecting the climate."

Other than the obvious contradiction in that (imaginary) statement, the worst part is that, typically, they are not interesting in finding out how the climate system works. They just want to know that they don't have to change their lifestyle. Beyond that, they are have no interest.

The biggest evidence of this is the fact that there is no robust climate model (one that takes in all the known forcings and feedbacks of our climate system) that shows that AGW is not happening. While there are several models that show it is happening, to one degree or another, there are none that I know of that show the opposite.

Yet deniers are absolutely sure they are right, to the point of accusing scientists of lying about their work.

I never understood how they could be so sure.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Someone needs to tell the Burpee seed catalog folks that it's just their imagination and that it was a mistake to revise all of their hardiness temperature zones northward because plants were consistently not growing properly under the older, cooler assumptions.

The swarm of brown stinkbugs that's infesting Pittsburgh because it's no longer too cold for them to survive here also seem to have missed the memo.

I don't think you mean it this way, but it looks like you're using these examples as proof of global warming. The deniers do the same thing - sure is a cold winter! Somebody tell Al Gore!

Better not to rely on that sort of example, unless you are just pointing out examples of the sort of consequences we might see from global warming.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't think you mean it this way, but it looks like you're using these examples as proof of global warming.
That Burpee has updated their growing zones to reflect the warming temperatures reported by the USDA is a good indication that the people who depend on agriculture for their livelihood are putting stock in global warming theory. That chart hasn't been updated in 20 years, so it's not just a season variation thing.

That doesn't prove that it's happening, but it's an example of warming theory driving money which is more interesting to me than the conspiracy theories about money driving warming theory. It means the market believes that the theory is legitimate, which is a particularly strong statement in conservative-speak.

[ February 09, 2012, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good point.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
This illustrates my biggest complaint about AGW deniers. Usually they throw up their hands and say, "Climate is too complex for us to understand. We don't know how it works, and never will. But we know that we aren't affecting the climate."/QB]

You have that exactly backwards. Here, I'll fix it for you:

This illustrates my biggest complaint about AGW believers. Usually they throw up their hands and say, "Climate is too complex for us to understand. We don't know how it works, super smart scientists tell us they do. But we know that we must be affecting the climate.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
[QB]
Other than the obvious contradiction in that (imaginary) statement, the worst part is that, typically, they are not interesting in finding out how the climate system works. They just want to know that they don't have to change their lifestyle. Beyond that, they are have no interest.

That is completely false. Plenty of skeptics make careers in climatology.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
The biggest evidence of this is the fact that there is no robust climate model (one that takes in all the known forcings and feedbacks of our climate system) that shows that AGW is not happening. While there are several models that show it is happening, to one degree or another, there are none that I know of that show the opposite.

Do you truly not understand the deeply flawed logic of that? Here, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum


quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Yet deniers are absolutely sure they are right, to the point of accusing scientists of lying about their work.

I never understood how they could be so sure.

We can be so sure because there is proof of it. Look up ClimateGate 1 and 2. You'll find instances where they did wholly fabricate data and talked about it among themselves.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
[QUOTE]That doesn't prove that it's happening, but it's an example of warming theory driving money which is more interesting to me than the conspiracy theories about money driving warming theory. It means the market believes that the theory is legitimate, which is a particularly strong statement in conservative-speak.

Warming is not the controversy. If you follow history, you'll see that we were scheduled for a warming period - it's cyclical. We warm and cool relatively predictably during this interglacial period of the current ice age. We were warming, now we've been cooling, right in line with the historical cycles. CO2 had nothing to do with it then, has nothing to do with it now.
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 
You don't understand argumentum ad populum either. Quelle surprise.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Climate is too complex for us to understand.
That's correct. Climate is a chaotic system, with several forcings. It is too complex for any simple system to understand. Which means it is too complex for laymen like me and you to understand. It's too complex for scientists to understand. That's why they have to use supercomputers to calculate it.

Get used to it. It's called Reality.

quote:
We don't know how it works, super smart scientists tell us they do.
Perhaps they do, or perhaps they don't. But they certainly have a much better idea than you or I. That is also called Reality. Get used to it.

quote:
But we know that we must be affecting the climate.
There are strong indications that we are affecting the climate based on the best models that we have.

What do you have? Wishful thinking? [Roll Eyes]

quote:
Plenty of skeptics make careers in climatology.
Sure. But a vast majority are not deniers like you, G2.

Skeptics have specific points where they are skeptical of the results. They are interested in the science. They admit that they don't know everything, and qualify their skepticism.

They don't declare that they are absolutely right. And they certainly don't believe everything that the AGW-deniers say, like you do.

quote:
Do you truly not understand the deeply flawed logic of that?
Please don't quote fallacies. You only make yourself look stupid.

When a vast majority of experts agree on something, it is not just "popular opinion." Or would you argue that the opinion of the majority of doctors, lawyers and car mechanics is just "argumentum ad populum?" [Roll Eyes]

This is especially true when there is no example of the minority. [LOL]

quote:
Look up ClimateGate 1 and 2. You'll find instances where they did wholly fabricate data and talked about it among themselves.
Only in your mind. Show me exactly where they fabricated data, and what the correct data is (or how the data is completely wrong).

Five panels (IIRC--might be six) looked for fabricated data and didn't find it. But I suppose you're a lot smarter than they are... [LOL]

You talk big, G2, but you're just full of hot air like a balloon. [Razz]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.davidbrin.com/climate3.htm

quote:
Who is an Expert?
Climate Skeptics first admit that they are non-experts in the topic at hand. And that experts tend to know more than non-experts. Since the Neolithic, human civilizations have relied on specialists, a trend that accelerated in the 20th Century. Reasonable people begin their paradigm -- dissent by stipulating respect for the decades that intelligent people invested in complex realms like radiative transfer, ocean chemistry, or microcell computer modeling.

This does not mean experts are always right! But this simple admission separates a Climate Skeptic from the Climate Denialist who partakes in the modern notion that vociferous opinion is worth as much as spending 20 years studying atmospheric data and models from eight planets.

The News I Need from the Weather Report
Next, the Climate Skeptic is keenly aware that, after endless jokes about hapless weathermen who could not prophesy accurately beyond a few hours, we recently entered a whole new era. Meteorologists can now forecast three days ahead fairly well, and more tentatively as far as 14 days, based on a science that has grown spectacularly adept, faster than any other. Now, with countless lives and billions of dollars riding on the skill and honesty of several thousand brilliant experts, the Climate Skeptic admits that these weather and climate guys are pretty damn smart.

(Side note: There is a distinction between weather and climate. Both deal in the same oceans, vapors, gases and sunlight, using almost identical basic equations and expertise. Both are extremely complex, and deal with that complexity with simplifying assumptions and boundary conditions. Clearly, climate modeling is more primitive, right now. Perhaps it is even rife with errors! Still, the overall tools, methods, community and eagerly-skilled people overlap greatly.)

The Climate Skeptic further avows that this rapid progress happened through a process of eager competitiveness, with scientists regularly challenging each other, poking at errors and forcing science forward -- a rambunctious, ambitious process that makes Wall Street look tame.

Climate Denialists also share this utter reliance on improved weather forecasting. They base vacations and investments on forecasts made by the same guys they call uniformly lazy, incompetent, corrupt hacks. Miraculously, they see no contradiction.

A Little Humility
Climate Skeptics go on to admit that it is both rare and significant when nearly 100% of the scientists in any field share a consensus-model, before splitting up to fight over sub-models. Hence, if an outsider perceives "something wrong" with a core scientific model, the humble and justified response of that curious outsider should be to ask "what mistake am I making?" before assuming 100% of the experts are wrong.

By contrast, Climate Denialists glom onto an anecdotal "gotcha!" from a dogma-driven radio show or politically biased blog site, whereupon they conclude that all of the atmospheric scientists must be in on some wretched conspiracy. Uniformly. At the same time.


Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks, Pyrtolin. I was going to look up that essay if I needed to.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-insider-exposes-institute-s-budget-and-strategy
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

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