Eat that GW believers!

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

TallDave
Posts: 3141
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

But these arguments are weak in the face of so much mounting data to the contrary regarding this denial of AGW.
There really isn't much data supporting the notion CO2 levels can drive climate to the extent being claimed. Historically, CO2 levels trail warming.

There is way too much uncertainty for us to undertake the trillion-dollars measures being considered. Just last week a study claimed half the warming attributed to CO2 is actually driven by methane.

Here's a pretty good summary of the major problems with AGW as a theory:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/09/m ... more-12671

jnaujok
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:19 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Contact:

Post by jnaujok »

Please provide the data you refer to and how it was computed from what proxy sources? I look forward to your referenced scientific paper on this subject. Your temp claims are misleading at best. Show me your non regional information that takes in global averages over many locations and proxies or measurements. For example correlate to global average ocean temp measurements and proxies may be easier especially in later years on shorter time periods. These averages are more telling that any few local air references. As far as the graph provided, look again the variance is not more that .8 C (not 2c) and that was during the 1600 mini ice age and if you look at 1900-1950 you will see again a zero anomaly or basically no change from that peak you boys refer to. Also even if .1/yr since 1999, wouldn't make more than a .1 on that graph worth of difference!
Okay, first off, here's the modern graph, extended to 2009 (so far) http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-im ... s_fig3.gif which comes from the "World Climate Report" web site, a decidely AGW leaning web site. Even they are admitting that there's no massive "Hockey Stick" in the graph any more.

Secondly. All the data I was talking about lies in the instrumental record, so I'll try to avoid using proxy series for that...

Third, even the surface instrumental record is suspect, since only 4% of the USHCN climate network even meets their own guidelines for siting and maintenance. http://www.surfacestations.org If 96% of the "Cadillac of Climate Networks" is off by 1 degree C or more, I fail to see how you can hope to tease a 0.5 degree change out the data with any kind of certainty.

Fourth, the NOAA recently (June) identified a malfunctioning thermometer at one of the stations in Hawaii. It was reading between 2 and 4 degrees F higher than actual temperatures, yet they kept all of the data (including an amazing string of record highs) in the data set for that station. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/16/h ... perature-2 and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/17/n ... -honolulu/ give an adequate description of that fiasco.

Mann's "Hockey Stick" and now the Briffa "Hockey Stick" that "rescued the IPCC" have both been shown to be fatally flawed, with Mann's based entirely on a small stand of Canadian Bristlecone Pine trees, and Briffa's entire stick based on a single tree in the Yamal river valley in Russia whose "proxy signal" does not even match the local instrumental temperature readings.

Both Briffa and Mann have now been found to use the Tiljander sediment proxy series, one which shows an extremely strong and large medieval warm period, upside-down to produce a hockey stick from the data that the Tiljander authors specifically said, "is poisoned by changes from modern agricultural methods and should not be considered as a valid part of the data series" after about 1900. Both Briffa and Mann jumped on this series, turned it upside down (Tiljander showed massive cooling in the 20th century) and claimed that this inverted graph now showed massive warming and the (now inverted) medieval "cold" period nicely canceled out the signal from their other, non-inverted, proxy series, which all show at least some medieval warm period. Mann (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7662) and Briffa (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7575).

Mann then went about the hand-waving of claiming that he can reproduce the graphs without a dendro contribution, so long as inverted Tiljander is included, and without Tiljander, so long as the dendros are included.

You've asked for proxy series that I take this grand statement from, and I can point to Tiljander, Yamal, and a dozen others (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/02/w ... roxy-data/, http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1165, http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=982 are a few more) that are all peer reviewed and accepted by the science community. There are, in fact, over 700 peer reviewed papers that agree on the MWP, including Huang et al (1998), Daansgard (1969), Schonweisse (1995), Tyson et al(2000), Noon et al(2003), Gupta et al(2005), and Esper and Scheingruber (2004). Even the IPCC's 1990 report included the Medieval Warm Period, until Mann managed to erase it with his first Hockey Stick in 1995. To deny the MWP, the Roman Warm Period, and other climate optimums prior to that, and claim that there has never been a change in temperature in the last 11,000 years borders on insanity, but it's what the AGW crowd would have us believe.

I am not saying that there's been no warming, because it's obvious there has been some shown in the satellite records, but I am saying that the proof that the cause of this warming being man-made is tenuous at best, and the likelihood that it is part of a natural variance, possibly with a tiny, tiny percentage of man-made effect, is far more likely.

Clearly, a single El Nino event in 1998 was enough to swamp any "signal" that humans added, and a single volcanic event in 1992 (Pinatubo) was enough to damp down any effect for two years.

We have to remember that the entirety of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone from about 0.03% to 0.04%, over 150 years. Meanwhile, the water cycle, which accounts for about 85% of the greenhouse effect, is still poorly understood as to its overall feedback as temperature increases. All of the computer models (15/15) used in climate modeling say that the atmospheric feedback is positive, but a study by Lindzen & Choi (2009) of 20 years of satellite data on ERBE satellite data (emitted radiation back into space), peer-reviewed and accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters of the American Geophysical Union, has shown that the overall atmospheric feedback is net-negative, in other words, as temperatures go up, the formation of clouds and precipitation tends to decrease the temperature, breaking all 15 climate models. http://masterresource.org/?p=4307

And be careful pointing at proxy records of temperature, or you'll find that you're living in the coldest period in the history of the Earth, with the lowest CO2 readings, ever. http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletter ... igure7.gif

Sorry, that's only from the American Physical Society web page. I know that an organization of physicists doesn't carry the same weight as the head of the IPCC, who has a degree in, oh yeah, railroad engineering. Or maybe Al Gore, who flunked out of Divinty School and has his degree in, oh yeah, journalism. Maybe you'd prefer to go with Stanford's Climate Science department, who are fully behind Global Warming... of course, they also advocated seeding the ice caps with soot in 1975 because they were fully behind Global Cooling and the next Ice Age back then (and it's the same department head, so don't argue that, either.) Maybe you'll go with the poster boy of global warming, James Hansen at NASA, who unfortunately, while claiming people like me are working for oil companies (Hey, guys, if you're reading this, I'm still waiting for my first check!), received over $750,000 from guys like George Soros and the Sierra Club to "fund his global warming research."

I'm sure you're going to come back and flame me on this again, but I really could care less. Go read some literature not published by Michael Mann and the Real Climate "Hockey Team". Go out and look at the sad state of our "Cadillac of Climate Networks". Go realize that the entire "Instrumental Record" for South America comes from *FOUR* stations, three of which are in the center of big city urban heat islands. You scream at me to do research, I challenge you to do your own.

I helped a student with a science fair project, and he was a major AGW advocate. I pointed him at the USHCN data and the site reviews from SurfaceStations.org. I was very careful to not give him any bias while I helped him (I was doing my own experiment to see if he would come, unaided, to the same conclusions I have.) He did all his own work, designing his own experiments, putting temperature sensors in the same kind of locations that were shown on the site, and putting a control thermometer, sited by USHCN guidelines nearby. He found up to a 7 degree centigrade variance caused by the siting of the thermometer.

By the end of his project he'd gone from an AGW advocate to a massive skeptic of the data that the USHCN has collected. If a single site can be off up to 13 degrees Fahrenheit, then how can we hope to have any chance of seeing a real signal in that mess. He also found that only one out of 20 tests gave him a negative bias, that being siting the thermometer over long, uncut grass. So, of 20 sites, 19 had a positive bias. How can you do this simple experiment and not end up a skeptic?

He also found, by the way, that if you use only the data from the correctly sited stations, then "global warming" is less than half of what's claimed, which is a dangerous number, since even the AGW crowd is now admitting that "up to half of global warming is caused by natural variance."

Scientific consensus is 500 scientists in a room pointing at an animal and saying "That's a rabbit", and one scientist walking in and saying, "You idiots, that's my cat." That's the problem with "consensus" in science, it still can't change the truth.

I'll leave you with this, over the last 10 years, CO2 emissions by mankind have been larger than any time in history (by the way, the US emissions have remained largely flat for the last 40 years, while the rest of the world has more than quadrupled their former output, going from about 50% of total emissions to over 85%). So, with more CO2 then ever before pouring into the atmosphere over 10 years, the temperature must have gone up...

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletter ... igure1.gif

MSimon
Posts: 14335
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

FE,

I'm a big believer in personal responsibility. If you really believe that CO2 is a problem it would be simple enough to eliminate your contribution.

But that wasn't the only alternative I presented.

In any case the Do Not Feed The Trees bill is not going to pass.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/12/d ... mate-bill/

So personal responsibility is all you have left. A move to Calif. if you are not already there might be good. They are a No New Nukes, No Coal and soon to be no electricity State. They plan to use the electricity they are not making to fuel the electric and PEHVs they are mandating. That should work.

Or you could be working on lowering the cost of any number of technologies so they become profit centers and not subsidy sinks.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Betruger
Posts: 2321
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

UncleMatt wrote:Its so hilarious how people try to pretend global warming isn't occurring, and/or politicize the issue to promote their personal political agenda.

Here is a clue for you guys: why are the glaciers and other large formations of ice melting away so very rapidly? Because temperatures are falling, or staying the same? (rolls eyes)

You can post all the theories you want that claim to refute global warming, but until the ice stops melting LONG TERM, and recovers its former mass, you really don't have much of a case to make. The undeniable evidence proves your anti-global warming BS as just that, BS.
And then you do the exact mirror political thing.

Why just Greenland? I've avoided getting into climate change like the plague because the science is so displaced by politics and other ludicrous biasing pet peeves, but allow me a simple outsider question - Why just Greenland and not the whole planet? Why is that one location singled out as indicative of everything else?
If everything about GW deniers as you call em is so wrong, why don't you concisely point out clear absolute (assuming that's why you say it with such certainty) evidence for each point made here? Instead of drive-by ridicule.

jnaujok
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:19 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Contact:

Post by jnaujok »

MSimon wrote: I'm a big believer in personal responsibility. If you really believe that CO2 is a problem it would be simple enough to eliminate your contribution.
Speaking of believing what you preach...

If Al Gore really believes that sea levels are going to rise 20 meters in the next 50 years (An Inconvenient Truth) then why did he just spend $4 million on a condo in San Francisco, 8 blocks from the bay? A condo that will be under 15 meters of water if he really believes he's right?

maps.google.com

He even knows about it, and still persists. From the movie:
Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth wrote: In 1992 they measured this amount of melting in Greenland. 10 years later this is what happened. And here is the melting from 2005. Tony Blair’s scientific advisor has said that because of what is happening in Greenland right now, the map of the world will have to be redrawn. Global Warming Ice Chart If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida. This is what would happen in the San Francisco Bay. A lot of people live in these areas.
Yeah, including you, Al...

MSimon
Posts: 14335
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

You are correct about reaching tipping points, the rest of the world won't wait around and depend on folks like you to solve the problem since like an alcoholic, you can't accept your problem yet. The rest of the world understands that every human on earth can't sustain a 20ton/person CO2 footprint like some Americans selfishly love to do.
Dood,

Get real. China is increasing CO2 emissions at a furious pace. India likewise. Africa is industrializing. And Europe, friggin Europe, is increasing CO2 emissions and has no plans for a Kyoto replacement.

So where is this mythical rest of the world that is not waiting for America to Do Something? Russia? Saudi Arabia? Oh. I know - Australia. And New Zealand. That'll make a dent and set an example.

AGW is a fine theory and proof of something. But people are weird. Despite looming catastrophe (the coming of an ice age - we are over due) people prefer to spend their own money on their own pursuits. I guess the individualism thing has gone beyond the bounds of sustainability and we need commissars to guide us to the right way of living. Or else.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

jnaujok
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:19 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Contact:

Post by jnaujok »

UncleMatt wrote: You can post all the theories you want that claim to refute global warming, but until the ice stops melting LONG TERM, and recovers its former mass, you really don't have much of a case to make. The undeniable evidence proves your anti-global warming BS as just that, BS.
Global Sea Ice extent does show a slight (very slight) downward trend of about 1%. However, since this only covers 30 years of satellite data where we actually know what's going on, it's really hard to judge.

Sorry, this image is big... ( yeah - me too Simon)

Image

Further back, we can only judge ice melting by certain pictures, like these...

1999 (U.S.S. Hawkbill)
Image

1987
Image

May 6th, 1986
Image

1959 USS Skate - note the thinness of the ice it broke through
Image

1958 - USS Skate - Open water at the North Pole!
Image


But remember, the Arctic has never, ever, ever, really, we mean it, ever melted before.

Image

MSimon
Posts: 14335
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

jnaujok,

Could you shrink the "too big" image so it doesn't require scrolling left and right to read the page?

You can do it in PhotoShop or Paint.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

TallDave
Posts: 3141
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

jnaujok wrote:Mann then went about the hand-waving of claiming that he can reproduce the graphs without a dendro contribution, so long as inverted Tiljander is included, and without Tiljander, so long as the dendros are included.
Wow, I hadn't heard that. That is just ridiculous.

BTW, thanks for the old news article. I've seen it around but didn't have a copy. Now I do!

TallDave
Posts: 3141
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

jnaujok wrote:Go realize that the entire "Instrumental Record" for South America comes from *FOUR* stations, three of which are in the center of big city urban heat islands.
You don't have a link handy for that, do you?

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

New prehistoric temp record in the making.

Post by TDPerk »

And if this article is accurate and the researchers correct:

"Patterson's team have now set their sights on even more precise records of historical climate. They have built a robot able to shave 0.05 micrometre slivers along the growth lines of fossilised clam shells, giving a resolution of less than a day. "We can get you mid-July temperatures from 400 million years ago," he says."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... onths.html

Then we'll have the data to which climate models can be tweaked until they can at least predict the past. Which is more than the AnthropogenicGlobalWarmer(TM) crowd have been able to show to date.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

pbelter
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:52 am

Re: New prehistoric temp record in the making.

Post by pbelter »

Whenever there is a scientific hypothesis that claims that something happens because of a specific factor introduced into a system, the scientific procedure used to be: Look at the control group where the factor is not introduced and see whether it behaves differently.

There is a guy in Russia, Dr. Abdusamatov, who did just that in regards to the Manmade Global Warming Hypothesis. Dr. Abdusamatov is the head of the Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory. This is the principal astronomical observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Dr. Abdusamatov looked at Mars and used it as a control group to see if global warming can be observed there. It was. As an old fashioned scientist he concluded that since control group experiences global warming and Man does not live on Mars therefore Man is not the reason for it.

Here is an article form January 2007 with some more details:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/stor ... c7f723&k=0

Dr. Abdusamatov spend some time trying to figure out what is causing Global Warming. His team discovered that there are several long term solar activity cycles in addition to the well documented 11 year old one.

Look at page 3-6 of this paper by Dr. Abdusamatov, where you can see the graph showing the 200 year cycle.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/abduss_nkj_2009.pdf

If his predictions are accurate we are heading straight down for the 200 minimum that will happen between 2030 and 2050, most likely around 2042.

When I first read about Dr. Abdusamatov's research the unusually low count of sunspots in the current 11 year cycle was knot known yet. The climate is cooling since 1998. Lets see how it works, but to me it looks like this guy is onto something.

UncleMatt
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:24 pm

Post by UncleMatt »

Betruger wrote:
UncleMatt wrote:Its so hilarious how people try to pretend global warming isn't occurring, and/or politicize the issue to promote their personal political agenda.

Here is a clue for you guys: why are the glaciers and other large formations of ice melting away so very rapidly? Because temperatures are falling, or staying the same? (rolls eyes)

You can post all the theories you want that claim to refute global warming, but until the ice stops melting LONG TERM, and recovers its former mass, you really don't have much of a case to make. The undeniable evidence proves your anti-global warming BS as just that, BS.
And then you do the exact mirror political thing.

Why just Greenland? I've avoided getting into climate change like the plague because the science is so displaced by politics and other ludicrous biasing pet peeves, but allow me a simple outsider question - Why just Greenland and not the whole planet? Why is that one location singled out as indicative of everything else?
If everything about GW deniers as you call em is so wrong, why don't you concisely point out clear absolute (assuming that's why you say it with such certainty) evidence for each point made here? Instead of drive-by ridicule.
No, I didn't do "the exact mirror political thing". I simply pointed out that MANY people adopt a point of view about global warming that is based on their politics, and not on science. Notice how I didn't say which political party has made a point of denying science, and which political party hasn't.

Here is more evidence that global warming is actually occurring, despite all the deniers:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 121611.htm

Record High Temperatures Far Outpace Record Lows Across US

TallDave
Posts: 3141
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

UncleMatt wrote:
Here is more evidence that global warming is actually occurring, despite all the deniers:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 121611.htm

Record High Temperatures Far Outpace Record Lows Across US
That's exactly what you would expect from a .1 degree per decade warming trend having nothing to do with CO2, from surface stations experiencing ever-increasing heat island growth from ever-expanding civilization.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress. ... ring09.pdf

AGW is a cargo cult. You see a correlation and you assume causation.

Those poor aborigines used to spend months building fake airports in hopes of having more cargo drop from the sky. Much of our society is apparently not all that much smarter.

UncleMatt
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:24 pm

Post by UncleMatt »

TallDave wrote:
UncleMatt wrote:
Here is more evidence that global warming is actually occurring, despite all the deniers:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 121611.htm

Record High Temperatures Far Outpace Record Lows Across US
That's exactly what you would expect from a .1 degree per decade warming trend having nothing to do with CO2, from surface stations experiencing ever-increasing heat island growth from ever-expanding civilization.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress. ... ring09.pdf

AGW is a cargo cult. You see a correlation and you assume causation.

Those poor aborigines used to spend months building fake airports in hopes of having more cargo drop from the sky. Much of our society is apparently not all that much smarter.
Actually, the denial of man's influence on global climate change stems largely from a religious perspective on the right. To that group, only their invisible man in the sky has the power to alter or change things on a global scale. If they admit man is capable of that, then their whole house of cards based on blind faith starts to come tumbling down. If man can change the global climate, he may also be responsible for many things they want to attribute to their god.

You can post all the veiled insults you want, act like I belong to a cult, that I think like an aborigine, or whatever else get you off. That kind of strategy simly doesn't work on me. Its called an ad hominem attack, which consists of one acting as if they are correct by default, or as if one's opponent were wrong by default. Its a worn out tactic that is easily seen through by anyone with intelligence. And again reveals how strategies used in politics are now used in discussions about climate change.

Post Reply