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 » Global Warming Research Center Hacked (Page 31)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 32 pages: 1  2  3  ...  28  29  30  31  32   
Author Topic: Global Warming Research Center Hacked
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I am not suggesting that climate change is not something that is covering by climatology. I am not suggesting anything on climate change...
Then why post?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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:
Somehow, I don't think the "authorities" were very convincing than, based on Al's carbon-emitting lifestyle versus his propaganda and lies.
I suppose you also believe, Daruam, that excess weight is not bad for your health, based on the fact that Dr. Kildare (who always advocates for a lean lifestyle) has a few extra pounds.

And that smoking isn't really bad for your health, since President Obama smokes. I mean, that proves it is all propoganda and lies, right?

But what I don't understand is how you can believe that AGW is all "propoganda and lies" when your leading authority on it, Senator Inofe, is such a hypocrite.

Last winter, he made an igloo for Al Gore during a snow storm, showing that global warming couldn't be happening since it was so cold in Washington.

But now that Washington and the East Coast is sweltering from one of the hottest and driest summers ever, is he putting out a beach umbrella for Al and admitting he was completely wrong? Is he? Because, by the same reasoning, if the storm last winter proved that AGW is not happening, this heat wave obviously proves that it is! [Wink]

How can you possibly believe in AGW when your "authorities" are so obviously wrong?

So before drawing scientific conclusions from the actions of celebrity "authorities," you might want to clean up the "authorities" on your side first, because that beam you guys are supporting from your eyes is weighing pretty heavy on your heads right now... [Big Grin]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  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 TomDavidson:
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
I am not suggesting that climate change is not something that is covering by climatology. I am not suggesting anything on climate change...

Then why post?
Personally, I enjoy your posts Grant. Thanks.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  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 
It's not that I don't enjoy them. But why post if you're not actually trying to say something?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In 2009:
quote:
The true meaning of Professor Jones’ “trick” to “hide the decline” in the data proxy series from 1960 onwards is all too clear from the three above examples. The real purpose of Michael Mann’s Nature trick (one of the many artifices and devices that the Team had used in fabricating the graph that had falsely abolished the medieval warm period) was to “incorrectly imply the reconstruction [from the tree-ring proxies] is more skilful [i.e. accurate as a representation of pre-industrial temperatures] than it actually is”.

Why does this matter so much? The reason is that if a “divergence” or discrepancy exists not merely between the magnitudes but even between the signs (i.e. the directions, towards warming or cooling) of measured temperature trends on the one hand, and those derived from tree-ring proxy data from the 1960s onwards on the other, then discarding only the post-1960 figures will have the effect of concealing that, during much of the period when instrumental temperatures are available to demonstrate the extent to which parallel tree-ring proxy data for the same period are producing accurate temperature reconstructions, the tree-ring proxies are producing flagrantly inaccurate and erroneous temperature reconstructions. In short, the tree-ring proxies are no good, as the UN had long stated, but the “Nature trick” was intended to “hide the decline” – and did so, until the whistleblower came along.

The very existence of a “divergence” between proxy and instrumental data covering the same period betrays a potential serious flaw in the process by which temperatures are reconstructed from tree-ring densities. If the relationship between proxy and instrumental data breaks down beyond a certain date, then any honest men of science would instinctively question whether the relationship was sound even before that date.

The entire basis for the Team’s purported abolition of the medieval warm period, and hence for the UN’s assertion that today’s temperatures are unprecedented in at least the last 1000 years, was false. And the Team’s attempt to “hide the decline” in the tree-ring proxy data compared with the post-1960 rise in instrumental global-temperature data, so as to conceal the inadequacy of the tree-ring proxies on the basis of which it had tried to abolish the medieval warm period, was – and there is no other way to put this – scientific fraud.

Now we get some feedback from Judith Curry. Before we get into the character assination of Dr. Curry, the bonafides:
quote:
Judith Curry is Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and President (co-owner) of Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN). She received a Ph.D. in Geophysical Sciences from the University of Chicago in 1982. Prior to joining the faculty at Georgia Tech, she held faculty positions at the University of Colorado, Penn State University and Purdue University. She currently serves on the NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee and has recently served on the National Academies Climate Research Committee and the Space Studies Board, and the NOAA Climate Working Group. Curry is a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Geophysical Union.
So let's dispense with the usual tear down of the non-faithful. Her conclusion:
quote:
There is no question that the diagrams and accompanying text in the IPCC TAR, AR4 and WMO 1999 are misleading. I was misled. Upon considering the material presented in these reports, it did not occur to me that recent paleo data was not consistent with the historical record. The one statement in AR4 (put in after McIntyre’s insistence as a reviewer) that mentions the divergence problem is weak tea.

It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document. Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest (I agree with Muller on this one). The authors defend themselves by stating that there has been no attempt to hide the divergence problem in the literature, and that the relevant paper was referenced. I infer then that there is something in the IPCC process or the authors’ interpretation of the IPCC process (i.e. don’t dilute the message) that corrupted the scientists into deleting the adverse data in these diagrams.

McIntyre’s analysis is sufficiently well documented that it is difficult to imagine that his analysis is incorrect in any significant way. If his analysis is incorrect, it should be refuted. I would like to know what the heck Mann, Briffa, Jones et al. were thinking when they did this and why they did this, and how they can defend this, although the emails provide pretty strong clues. Does the IPCC regard this as acceptable? I sure don’t.

Can anyone defend “hide the decline”? I would much prefer to be wrong in my interpretation, but I fear that I am not.

Misleading. Dishonest. Corrupted. AGW theory is all of it.

[ February 23, 2011, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2,

You draw too broad a conclusion from the material you post here.

The tree-ring data became unreliable after 1960 due to known biological changes that occur in trees at higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere (i.e., changes in how the rings grow). There is no dispute among scientists that the higher CO2 levels are there, nor that trees undergo these biological changes in those conditions.

The only way the earlier tree-ring data would be nullified is if CO2 levels at some point before 1960 were equally high. They may have been at times, but the point is, you don't throw out tree-rings altogether on this basis.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Take it up with Judith, it's her conclusion as much as mine - perhaps even more so. She seems pretty well suited to evaluate it.

[ February 23, 2011, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

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 KidTokyo:
The tree-ring data became unreliable after 1960 due to known biological changes that occur in trees at higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere (i.e., changes in how the rings grow). There is no dispute among scientists that the higher CO2 levels are there, nor that trees undergo these biological changes in those conditions.

No, that's not true at all. I've seen a lot of reasons to attempt to explain the divergence, but CO2 is not one of them.

quote:
Scientists have several possible explanations for this divergence, none of them mutually exclusive, and all of which — drought, global dimming, ozone holes — fault human activity for the slowing growth rate of some trees.
Link

This is one of the big holes in modern AGW theory.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2,

You quote Judith, but you do not stick up for Judith.

I am left wondering -- do you even understand Judith?

"She seems wicked smart" does not come across as a strong argument.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


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

You quote Judith, but you do not stick up for Judith.

I am left wondering -- do you even understand Judith?

"She seems wicked smart" does not come across as a strong argument.

Does Judith need me to defend her? From what? From who?

I am left wondering -- do you even understand Judith?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts,

The CS article doesn't explain the issue fully. I am aware of the other influencing factors -- and if you look back about 20 pages or so in this thread, you'll find I posted links to information citing those factors (density, drought sensitivity, etc.)

But the problem is that the article only scratches the surface.

Biologist Pete Wykoff explains:

quote:
Since 1960, the rings in trees seem to have lost some of their power to record temperature.

Why should tree rings indicate temperature at all? As most of us learned in childhood, the trunks of trees at our latitude tend to put on a distinct growth ring every year. All other things being equal, when the trees are happy, they put on a large ring. When the going gets tough, the rings get thin. What makes a tree happy? Light, nutrients, lack of disease, and warmth (to a point). What do trees despise? Drought. By careful interpretation of past tree growth patterns, we can learn a lot about past climates.

Scientists have spent many years developing the techniques needed to reconstruct climate via tree rings. The problem is that in the past few decades, the tree ring-climate relationships seem to have become "decoupled" in many areas. Why? The main cause seems to be increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. While carbon dioxide is famously a gas that heats the planet (the greenhouse effect is real and uncontroversial), carbon dioxide also directly impacts plants. Carbon dioxide fuels photosynthesis, and increased carbon dioxide in the air can both speed-up plant growth and make plants less sensitive to drought.

Decreased drought sensitivity is an expected response for plants exposed to high levels of carbon dioxide. All along the underside of a plant's leaves are little holes called "stomata." These holes can open and close. A tree must open its stomata to take in carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. Unfortunately, plants lose water out of their open stomata. Plants growing in air that has lots of carbon dioxide can reduce the amount of time their stomata are open, thus making them lose less water and become less susceptible to drought.


Source
Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2,

I addressed her point directly. Your response was a non-response.

It's up to you to if you want to defend whatever point you think you're making.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  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 
Thanks for the info.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  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:
This is one of the big holes in modern AGW theory.
Actually, it is not a hole in the theory, but in the historical temperature record. It is used since it seems to be pretty accurate except for the last few decades. But it does not really affect AGW theory, per se, as I understand it.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  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 
It's a big gaping hole for me.

The assumption that tree ring data was statistically accurate up until the 1960's when it's provably inaccurate, is a whopping big hole in my book.

It doesn't disprove Global Warming in my mind, but it's a huge caveat.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  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 
The thing is, you can still make temperature estimates without the tree ring data. They are less accurate, since the tree rings cover some areas that we don't have other records for, IIRC.

When you are doing historical research, you work with what you have. [Smile]

And I've heard that AGW theory is actually strengthen by omitting the tree ring data. So while it may be a hole, and an oddity, it is hardly a major problem for AGW, from what I understand.

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 
Wayward has it.

Tree-rings provide a snapshot of summer temperatures. Other methods, core samples for instance, give a year-round average. Also, thermometers of ages past.

When we speak of "divergence," we're referring to the fact that tree-ring data suddenly goes AWOL from the other, much more direct and comprehensive means of measurement.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  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 
If you look at just the ice core's you don't obviously see global warming, what you see is the upswing of a historically repeating pattern that has existed since the ice age began.

EPICA graph

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  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 
To keep the record complete, the Commerce Department's inspector general was asked to investigate the "climategate" e-mails.

His findings? He "found no evidence pointing to inappropriate data manipulation" by members of NOAA.

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


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A look at the fallout

quote:
It has now been more than 20 months since the CRU emails were outed, by whatever or whomever. Some day we may actually know who did it, but for now we certainly do not. Depending on who it was, we can only speculate now as to what the immediate motives were. Was it an insider who had seen the nastiness and not wanted to let it go on any longer? Was it an insider who had a grudge against someone at CRU? Was the server hacked into, as is claimed publicly by all on The Team and their many AGW brothers in arms?

Though all that will be extremely interesting if and when it happens, the bigger picture will eventually be this: Who won? And how decisive was Climategate, anyway? Or is it too early to tell? At some point people will try to assess that question. Is now a viable time to do that assessing?

I assert that it may not be too early to tell.

<snip>

All in all, although we don’t want to jinx it, it might be just about the right time to wave the victory flag. We are certainly in a far different world vis-a-vis global warming than 21 months ago. The climatologists are, to a very large extent, being ignored. Yes, there is an IPCC coming up, and perhaps we should wait until that is over. But I will predict that no matter what hoohah comes out of it, it will not have 50% of the energy of the previous IPCCs, because governments just aren’t listening with baited breath anymore. If there is any place where the mojo counted, it was with governments. But it ain’t there, no more.

Our victory lap is just around the corner. Yes, some people on the street will believe that the climate is changing, but – and this is the important part – then they think, “So what? We have other, more important things to worry about.”

Chicken Little is dead. Sprinkle the seasoning on and put it on the barbie.

Thank the gods for Climategate.

Yes indeed, "Thank the gods for Climategate". It was the the stake in the heart of that hoax. [Cool]

I did something I rarely do and provided a link since it was a really long post but for the usual suspects who need only the keywords it's from Steve Garcia at http://feet2thefire.wordpress.com/ that way you don't even have to click through. [Wink]

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 
I don't think Climategate was decisive. It did expose the deception at the heart of some key AGW advocates.

The reality is that society will react to AGW when it becomes apparent that the issue is critical.

To restate my beliefs:
A) We are seeing global warming.
B) A portion of it is due to CO2 from human activity.
C) The temperature trend line is at the bottom edge or below what the advocates have been touting.

I think that the issue is real, but the advocates have for whatever reasons over-hyped the dangers to the point of an inevitable backlash.

This issue needs another 20 years of base line analysis before we know for sure and before we spend vast sums of money addressing the issue. It would be prudent in the mean time to promote natural gas, wind and nuclear over coal electrical production as this is likely to have other desirable side affects even if it turns out to be unnecessary from a AGW point of view.

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 
G2, why do you believe what Garcia says? Is he a scientist? He doesn't say what his credentials are. And, if you read into the post right after the point where you paused your snip, the next sentence reads:
quote:
And I think our side won, big time.
What side is that?

[ July 22, 2011, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
I don't think Climategate was decisive.

I don't know. The part where Garcia shows just how much the center of gravity shifted in the debate is pretty telling. Climategate may just be one factor among many but there's no doubt it had a real and substantive impact by exposing many of the mechanics behind the fraud used to create the illusion of consensus.
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 JWatts:
I don't think Climategate was decisive.

I don't know. The part where Garcia shows just how much the center of gravity shifted in the debate is pretty telling. Climategate may just be one factor among many but there's no doubt it had a real and substantive impact by exposing many of the mechanics behind the fraud used to create the illusion of consensus.
Oh, I agree it had a substantive impact. I just don't think it was decisive. AGW hasn't gone away and the scientists will keep plugging away at the data. The current data says that the 20th century experienced a temperature rise of 1.3F.

The current AGW science predicts a rise of 6-11F in the next century. If by 2030 we haven't seen a rise of at least 1F, it's going to be hard to justify the current predictions.

[ July 22, 2011, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
AGW hasn't gone away and the scientists will keep plugging away at the data.

AGW will probably never go away - just as there are people that still believe in a flat earth there will be AGW believers.
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 
AGW will continue as long as the Earth continues to heat (and don't fool yourself G2--since you aren't fooling anyone else--temperatures are still rising). And AGW-deniers' claims will continue to sound more and more hollow as the climate changes.

Just remember--AGW scientists, AGW theories, AGW denials, and even Climategate don't matter to the Earth's climate system.

But it matter to us. [Smile] And understanding it is our best way to deal with it.

[ July 22, 2011, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  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 JWatts:
AGW hasn't gone away and the scientists will keep plugging away at the data.

AGW will probably never go away - just as there are people that still believe in a flat earth there will be AGW believers.
Not really a fair comparison. The earth is round not flat.

Whereas, broadly speaking there is no doubt about AGW. Mankind definitely warms the earth. The question is whether we are continuously warming the earth in a upward spiral vs a mild increase based roughly upon the average of human activity and population size.

If we build a nuclear power plant and cause a little fission (and we've done more than one) then we have raised the background temperature of the planet to some degree. That degree may well be very mild. But there is more heat in the atmosphere than their would be otherwise.

Cranking up the thermostat 2 degrees is an inconvenience. If we set it up so the thermostat is continuously going up, even when we aren't increasing the population, then we've got an issue.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
AGW will continue as long as the Earth continues to heat (and don't fool yourself G2--since you aren't fooling anyone else--temperatures are still rising). And AGW-deniers' claims will continue to sound more and more hollow as the climate changes.

Just this month:
quote:
A group of researchers say they've found an explanation for why global temperatures stayed relatively steady instead of steadily rising during a 10-year period between 1998 and 2008.
" global temperatures stayed relatively steady instead of steadily rising during a 10-year period between 1998 and 2008. " What's that mean? This:
quote:
There is no statistically significant warming trend since November of 1996 in monthly surface temperature records compiled at the University of East Anglia.
There has been " no statistically significant warming trend since November of 1996 ". For the last 15 years, temperatures have not really changed in *any* meaningful way.

Meanwhile, global sea surface temperatures have declined slightly I'm not sure if it's statistically significant though but for the last 7 years appear to be totally flat so maybe we can just say nothing is happening there just like it is in the atmosphere.

And here's a shocker ... sea levels have begun to fall.

And about hollow claims ...
quote:
50 million climate refugees will be produced by climate change by the year 2010. Especially hard hit will be river delta areas, and low lying islands in the Caribbean and Pacific. The UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 said: …it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010.
Consequently, the UN tried to hide the original claim from view. Now it is claimed that it will be 10 years into the future, and there will be 50 million refugees by the year 2020. [DOH]

[ July 22, 2011, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

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 
And what was so special about 1998, G2?

That was, according to many measurements, the warmest year on record.

So "global temperatures stayed relatively steady instead of steadily rising during a 10-year period between 1998 and 2008" means that the Earth has remained just about the hottest its been on record for 10 straight years!

This indicates to you that global warming is not happening? [Exploding]

Meanwhile, take a look at the global mean temperatures over the last 150 years.

According to the chart, has there ever been a time when temperutures failed to rise?

According to the chart, have temperatures risen signficantly in the last 150?

According to the chart, does a decade of temperatures remaining steady at the highest level indicate that the temperatures will no longer rise?

So why do you believe that temperatures remaining steady at their highest levels means the global warming has stopped and been disproven?

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  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 
G2, do you have any authority more persuasive than a paintimage on a wordpress site, for the proposition that sea levels are falling?

Thanks

Pete

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
And what was so special about 1998, G2?

That was, according to many measurements, the warmest year on record.

So "global temperatures stayed relatively steady instead of steadily rising during a 10-year period between 1998 and 2008" means that the Earth has remained just about the hottest its been on record for 10 straight years!

This indicates to you that global warming is not happening? [Exploding]

Meanwhile, take a look at the global mean temperatures over the last 150 years.

According to the chart, has there ever been a time when temperutures failed to rise?

According to the chart, have temperatures risen signficantly in the last 150?

According to the chart, does a decade of temperatures remaining steady at the highest level indicate that the temperatures will no longer rise?

So why do you believe that temperatures remaining steady at their highest levels means the global warming has stopped and been disproven?

Good game. What's so special about that 150 years you love so much? Why do AGW adherents like the 150 year window? Because that coincides with the end of the Little Ice Age! Take a look at global mean temperatures for all time! Yeah, when we look at the true history we see quite a different story than the cherry picked 150 year range.

Why should we believe that temperatures remaining steady means the global warming has stopped and been disproven? Because that's not what AGW theory says should happen. We were supposed to see ever rising temperatures, more and bigger storms, millions displaced, rising sea levels, etc, etc. Yet none of that has happened. The worst thing that can be said to have happened during all this hysteria is that things have flatlined and show every indication of actual cooling now. If every projected outcome of your theory is not happening, the theory is obviously not accurate.

[ July 22, 2011, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

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 
I chose the last 150 years since that is the period when we have actual measured temperature data.

Estimates of global mean temperatures for all time are all well and good, but we are only concerned with the temperatures for the past 100,000 years or so, since Man's been around. As someone once said, it's nice to know how hot it was for the T-Rex, but that doesn't really matter much to me. [Smile]

Besides, there have been plenty of reasons for temperatures to change over history. The question is, why are they changing now?

And remember that climate is a chaotic system. There are numerous feedback loops which make the system inherently unpredictable over the short-term. Only AGW deniers and those unfamiliar with the science believe that temperatures should rise steadily, year-by-year. Heck, just looking at the chart shows that temperatures haven't done that in the last 100 years! And you believe that the scientists didn't notice that? [Roll Eyes]


The projected outcomes have error bars, if you noticed. How far outside the error bars have the actual temperatures gone? Or do you even acknowledge that there are error bars?

You have a strawman concept of what the theory is. It is not suprising that the facts don't fit your strawman. [Wink]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
And what was so special about 1998, G2?

That was, according to many measurements, the warmest year on record.

So "global temperatures stayed relatively steady instead of steadily rising during a 10-year period between 1998 and 2008" means that the Earth has remained just about the hottest its been on record for 10 straight years!

This indicates to you that global warming is not happening? [Exploding]

And in a billion years, even the Sun itself is going to make planet Earth so toasty warm that our descendants, if they're still around, are not likely to be living on planet Earth any longer. Unless they happen to manage the very impressive engineering feat of moving the Earth's orbit sufficiently outward that it remains comfortably inside the habitable zone.

Global warming is happening, it is just a question of what time scale you're dealing in. As well as the additional matter of what factors you believe to be driving the issue.

[ July 22, 2011, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: TheDeamon ]

Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  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 G2:
Good game. What's so special about that 150 years you love so much? Why do AGW adherents like the 150 year window? Because that coincides with the end of the Little Ice Age! Take a look at global mean temperatures for all time! Yeah, when we look at the true history we see quite a different story than the cherry picked 150 year range.

Since we presumably want to keep living on this planet, shouldn't we be concerned about the time in which we've lived here? Don't we want to, say, keep it livable?

Just to throw a monkey wrench into everyone's arguments, could Global Warming and also ambient radiation levels be affected by Sol's vertical position in the Milky Way? Could that throw off isotope-dating?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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 Wayward Son:
I chose the last 150 years since that is the period when we have actual measured temperature data.

The chart you showed was supposedly global temperatures. So no, we haven't had actual measured temperatures world wide for the last 150 years in any meaningful sense. Almost all of that data is reconstructed from proxies.

Heck, we don't really have good global temperature records going back more than 40 years for much of the ocean.


quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Just to throw a monkey wrench into everyone's arguments, could Global Warming and also ambient radiation levels be affected by Sol's vertical position in the Milky Way?

What do you mean by vertical? We have a radial position? Like the time on a clock. And we have a horizontal point as measured by the thickness of the Milky Way. And you could also measure our position by how far up or down we are on the Orion arm (the spiral we're on)?

Milky Way

Here is a site connecting the Ice ages with Sol's travel through the Milky Way:
Science Bits

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  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 
Lay the MW disk flat, and we go thru the arms like around the clock, like you said. But according to some Science Channel documentary (Thing 3 has it recorded and I'll look it up over the weekend) we also bob up and down through the disk.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"bobbing" may not be completely accurate(but not having seen the show mentioned, hard to call).

It is possible that we're on an elevated orbit relative to the "galactic equator" for the Milky Way. So sometimes we're above that equator, and other times we're below it, but given how large that orbit is, those changes/transitions would take a very long time to happen. (To flip the relationship, you could use the Sun's relationship to Earth as an example, end even the other way around. At some points in our orbit the sun is "below" our equator, and other it is "above" the equator)

For more crazy stellar wonkery, there is some stuff out there showing strong correlation between some planetary alignments and solar activity when looking at paleoclimate records going back at least a few thousand years. It also seems to have decent correlation to temperatures being seen. Those wonky models are showing what we just went through would have been most of those cycles hitting their maximums over the course of the last 20 years and they're ALL heading down now. So our global warming was a cumulative additive effect of all those cycles hitting at the same time, and now that they're forecasting a solar minimum, temps should start dropping over the next few years.

-------

I'm also enjoying some newer discoveries like research suggesting that during the previous ice ages the Arctic Ocean may not have been frozen, and the trigger was actually evaporation from the not-frozen Arctic being fed by a warm Atlantic fueling storms that then dumped lots of snow on the northern continents, generating those massive glaciers. Very "Day After Tommorow" like, only without the super-disaster transition, bonus points because the site proposing this is one of the skeptic sites.

--------------------

Another REAL winner has to be this one, I liked the comment that went with it from the skeptic:

Yeah, Climate change is happening, it is making storms less severe over time:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/tornado/tornadotrend.jpg

[ July 23, 2011, 04:44 AM: Message edited by: TheDeamon ]

Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
I chose the last 150 years since that is the period when we have actual measured temperature data.

No, you didn't because that's simply not true. You chose it because that's the time frame that's fed to you through the consensus. The consensus likes 150 years because it coincides with the end of the Little Ice Age which makes things look likes it's worse than it's ever been but when you look at the full history you see that the planet is running well below historical averages right now.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Estimates of global mean temperatures for all time are all well and good, but we are only concerned with the temperatures for the past 100,000 years or so, since Man's been around. As someone once said, it's nice to know how hot it was for the T-Rex, but that doesn't really matter much to me. [Smile]

That's simple human arrogance and is a position to deny how the planet really works. You want to snip a nearly insignificant time frame out of the global history and say that's normal.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Besides, there have been plenty of reasons for temperatures to change over history. The question is, why are they changing now?

We have a good idea why and we are certain that CO2 is a lagging indicator of warming, not a driver.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
And remember that climate is a chaotic system. There are numerous feedback loops which make the system inherently unpredictable over the short-term. Only AGW deniers and those unfamiliar with the science believe that temperatures should rise steadily, year-by-year. Heck, just looking at the chart shows that temperatures haven't done that in the last 100 years! And you believe that the scientists didn't notice that? [Roll Eyes]

Yes they did notice it, that's why the temperature record over the last 100 years or so is under constant adjustment to make the past look cooler and the current look hotter.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
The projected outcomes have error bars, if you noticed. How far outside the error bars have the actual temperatures gone? Or do you even acknowledge that there are error bars?

The phrase you're looking for is "statistically insignificant". When the change is statistically insignificant, the margin of error really doesn't mean that much.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
You have a strawman concept of what the theory is. It is not suprising that the facts don't fit your strawman. [Wink]

You have a faith based concept of what the theory is. It is not surprising that you cannot recognize the facts no longer fit your theory. [Wink]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Since we presumably want to keep living on this planet, shouldn't we be concerned about the time in which we've lived here? Don't we want to, say, keep it livable?

If large scale drivers outside of human control drive global temperatures, as they have for billions of years, how do you propose we override those? I don't see any scenario where we might control solar output or cosmic rays or atmospheric water vapor.
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 TheDeamon:

Another REAL winner has to be this one, I liked the comment that went with it from the skeptic:

Yeah, Climate change is happening, it is making storms less severe over time:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/tornado/tornadotrend.jpg

Wow, 1974 was really a very bad year for tornadoes. Over three times the average number of 'severe' tornadoes. My family was caught out on the road when a tornado hit Nashville that year and I remember it as a rather exciting event. Our car was swept off the road about a block from our house and my mom made me crouch under the dashboard.

I never realized it was a nationwide occurrence till just now.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 32 pages: 1  2  3  ...  28  29  30  31  32   

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