[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

It is very different, in fact, completely wrong—specifically, warming and cooling of the earth's climate has been historically episodic/cyclical and, while I can't speak for the rest of you, I've only gone through puberty once (and I would not consider it 'normal' were it to happen again).

The analogy doesn't require the things being compared to be that exact to work. The fact is that in both examples, we have "change" but can't determine whether that change is normal or not (even though both seem to show an unusual amount of change for the things in question) without determining how comparable things have happened in the past.

If you want to understand the 'change' in the past with any kind of rigor, you need to look at the factors that contribute to that change—not just simply that it changed in the past.

Get back to me when you can accurately determine that. I believe that when people tried to use what they thought was causing warming 10 years ago, they made computer models that we were assured where accurate which promised us that we'd have warmer temperatures right now. It seems as though what people thought they knew about predicting what causes/caused change was very limited in scope.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

The earth has warmed over the past 11 years.

The earth has warmed over the past 9 years.

"However, since the earth has cooled over exactly the past 10 years, then global warming is not real."

lol?

Lol? indeed.

You can cherry pick any segment of time and find evidence that supports your pre-drawn conclusion. Thanks for agreeing with me.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I believe that when people tried to use what they thought was causing warming 10 years ago, they made computer models that we were assured where accurate which promised us that we'd have warmer temperatures right now

You believe... wrongly

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

You believe... wrongly

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I believe that when people tried to use what they thought was causing warming 10 years ago, they made computer models that we were assured where accurate which promised us that we'd have warmer temperatures right now.

You mean, kinda like we were assured that weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq? And yet, billions were spent on *that*. Maybe environmentalists are taking the wrong approach. Rather than try to convince people that humans are responsible for climate change, they should focus on convincing Americans that terrorists are responsible for global warming.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You mean, kinda like we were assured that weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq?

EXACTLY like that. International consensus was that Iraq had them. Saddam Hussein pretended like he did have (or he did have them and shipped them off elsewhere as has been suggested) them.

And yet, billions were spent on *that*.

Billions where spent on betting that the world would be freer if we acted, and no reduction in the freedoms we cherish or our way of life ensued. That's not the case with Global Warming Fundentalists. They tell us our way of life has to change, and that we've got to spend billions in doing so.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You mean, kinda like we were assured that weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq? And yet, billions were spent on *that*. Maybe environmentalists are taking the wrong approach. Rather than try to convince people that humans are responsible for climate change, they should focus on convincing Americans that terrorists are responsible for global warming.

Yup. Just like we're going to focus our efforts in Afghanistan to get OBL and "stamp out Al Qaeda". Where's OBL? Maybe we should blame opium poppy production for "consensus" science.

[BadKosh]

Its still using weather data to attempt to prove climate change. How can you trust the data? How can you trust the scientists? Why would you trust any conclusions?

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

You believe... wrongly

An assumption stated as fact. why should we believe you? Why should we trust your conclusions? Why do you trust those who taught/indoctrinated you?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

They tell us our way of life has to change, and that we've got to spend billions in doing so.

And, you've spent billions changing your way of life to fight terrorism. The degree to which your life is now tracked and monitored has changed dramatically. You're ability to travel freely without question is gone. The power of your president to act without oversight has increased. Photographers in public places are now viewed with suspicion.

If you don't think the War on Terror (of which the War on Iraq is only one part) has resulted in a change in your way of life, you've got your head in the sand.

So, yes, they say that the War on Climate Change will mean a change in our way of life. But, we've already shown that we're willing to change our way of life when the risk of that way of life being changed negatively for us without our consent is high enough.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

An assumption stated as fact. why should we believe you? Why should we trust your conclusions? Why do you trust those who taught/indoctrinated you?

lol?

I was responding tongue-in-cheek to a statement made by stupendousman that had no data, source, citation, or any other source of corroboration.

Ironic? Oh yes. Now how about you do some work for a change, and show me some proof?

greg

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Get back to me when you can accurately determine that. I believe that when people tried to use what they thought was causing warming 10 years ago, they made computer models that we were assured where accurate which promised us that we'd have warmer temperatures right now. It seems as though what people thought they knew about predicting what causes/caused change was very limited in scope.

It's true some of the models weren't as rigorous as they can be now, partly due to the fact that the science is evolving and partly due to technology. I'll quote from this article about the 20+ year old study:

In the original 1988 paperoriginal 1988 paper, three different scenarios were used A, B, and C. They consisted of hypothesised future concentrations of the main greenhouse gases – CO2, CH4, CFCs etc. together with a few scattered volcanic eruptions. The details varied for each scenario, but the net effect of all the changes was that Scenario A assumed exponential growth in forcings, Scenario B was roughly a linear increase in forcings, and Scenario C was similar to B, but had close to constant forcings from 2000 onwards. Scenario B and C had an ‘El Chichon’ sized volcanic eruption in 1995. Essentially, a high, middle and low estimate were chosen to bracket the set of possibilities. Hansen specifically stated that he thought the middle scenario (B) the “most plausible”.

These experiments were started from a control run with 1959 conditions and used observed greenhouse gas forcings up until 1984, and projections subsequently (NB. Scenario A had a slightly larger ‘observed’ forcing change to account for a small uncertainty in the minor CFCs). It should also be noted that these experiments were single realisations. Nowadays we would use an ensemble of runs with slightly perturbed initial conditions (usually a different ocean state) in order to average over ‘weather noise’ and extract the ‘forced’ signal. In the absence of an ensemble, this forced signal will be clearest in the long term trend.

It looks like GHG's and some volcanic forcings were used. As technology and science progressed the models have gotten more complex—by using additional forcings—and more robust—by using aggregate results from many runs. If you can't be convinced that a 20+ year old model based on 30+ year old science has been proved largely accurate—within the margins of error—and that things have improved in the last 20 years, then I'm not sure that I can convince you of anything given the facts.

It's apparent that you have a distrust of science and scientists—in general? or only climate?—but you are dealing with an educated audience here. Simply stating "models are wrong!" and "they promised me warming!" may work with a lay crowd, but for the likes of Shortcut, ebuddy, et al., it's not really a convincing argument or one worthy of attention. There are tens of models being used across the globe by various government and research agencies. Which models, if any, do you have specific problems with. I asked before where you were "promised" results, but you didn't respond with that answer—my guess is that you're just making it up.

I'm thinking that your problem may lie with how science is portrayed in the media and not with the actual science itself. And I'm all about that. Science is tricky, and the media basically sucks—on any topic. Thoughts?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

And, you've spent billions changing your way of life to fight terrorism. The degree to which your life is now tracked and monitored has changed dramatically.

My life hasn't really changed an iota, other than when I go to the airport, and that would be the case with or without the Iraq war. That is unless I'm making phone calls to known terrorist states, and the chances of me doing that is slim to none and as long as I don't talk about making bombs or money laundering, it's not likely something that would show up on any "radar".

On the other hand, when I'm paying out of my pocket more for energy due to environmental taxes, and prices go sky high from all the unreasonable regulations companies have to comply with in order to fight against an unproven enemy in a way that is likely to have absolutely ZERO effect on it, my lifestyle definitely changes.

You're ability to travel freely without question is gone. The power of your president to act without oversight has increased. Photographers in public places are now viewed with suspicion.

None of which has anything to do with the war in Iraq. These things happen because people are at war with us, which we did not choose. It is real, proven threat and one that government action can help with (and something that Constitutionally the government is in control of).

So, yes, they say that the War on Climate Change will mean a change in our way of life. But, we've already shown that we're willing to change our way of life when the risk of that way of life being changed negatively for us without our consent is high enough.

The evidence that "terror" is upon us and terrorists want us dead was proven on 9/11. The threat is real and not just a theory. We've acted based on that real, proven threat. On the other hand, you have a non-proven threat with shaky evidence that we know even if we take action we'll have little effect on.

REALLY, apples to oranges here.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

It's true some of the models weren't as rigorous as they can be now, partly due to the fact that the science is evolving and partly due to technology.

Which is the exact same excuse we hear each and every time models have failed us. We were told the same thing back then. At some point, you really can't believe that people will sit there with a straight face and not laugh.

If you can't be convinced that a 20+ year old model based on 30+ year old science has been proved largely accurate—within the margins of error—and that things have improved in the last 20 years, then I'm not sure that I can convince you of anything given the facts.

You can't convince me that something that was used to try and get people to believe that the planet was getting hotter and hotter and we couldn't control it, was accurate given the fact that hasn't happened. I can't believe something where there is verifiable and undeniable proof that it's not true.

Also, manipulating data so you've got so broad a spread (ensuring they hit the "broad side of the barn") that you can't fail if the scenario you're pushing comes up short, really isn't anything to put much faith in.

It's apparent that you have a distrust of science and scientists—in general? or only climate?—but you are dealing with an educated audience here.

I have a distrust where it's clear that money and politics are inordinately influencing science and scientists. A person can be educated and still driven by politics and a lack of common sense.

Simply stating "models are wrong!" and "they promised me warming!" may work with a lay crowd, but for the likes of Shortcut, ebuddy, et al., it's not really a convincing argument or one worthy of attention. There are tens of models being used across the globe by various government and research agencies. Which models, if any, do you have specific problems with. I asked before where you were "promised" results, but you didn't respond with that answer—my guess is that you're just making it up.

STUDY FORESEES 86 NEW POWER PLANTS TO COOL U.S. WHEN GLOBE GETS HOTTER: Global warming could force Americans to build 86 more power plants -- at a cost of $110 billion -- to keep all their air conditioners running 20 years from now, a new study says...Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010, and the drain on power would require the building of 86 new midsize power plants - Associated Press May 15, 1989

U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP - entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect - Associated Press June 30, 1989

'New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now,' - St. Louis Post-Dispatch Sept. 17, 1989

Some predictions for the next decade (1990's) are not difficult to make... Americans may see the '80s migration to the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in cooler climates. - Dallas Morning News December 5th 1989

"(By) 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots... "(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers... "The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands". - Michael Oppenheimer, The Environmental Defense Fund - "Dead Heat" 1990

Giant sand dunes may turn Plains to desert - Huge sand dunes extending east from Colorado's Front Range may be on the verge of breaking through the thin topsoil, transforming America's rolling High Plains into a desert, new research suggests. The giant sand dunes discovered in NASA satellite photos are expected to re- emerge over the next 20 to 50 years, depending on how fast average temperatures rise from the suspected "greenhouse effect," scientists believe. -Denver Post April 18, 1990

By 2000, British and American oil will have dimished to a trickle......Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North's greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live.....At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years. - 5000 Days to Save the Planet - Edward Goldsmith 1991

''I think we're in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left - we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.'' - ABC - The Miracle Planet April 22, 1990

The planet could face an "ecological and agricultural catastrophe" by the next decade if global warming trends continue - Carl Sagan - Buffalo News Oct. 15, 1990

Most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s and by the next century it will be too late. -- Thomas E. Lovejoy, Smithsonian Institution “Real Goods Alternative Energy Sourcebook,” Seventh Edition: February 1993

Today (in 1996) 25 million environmental refugees roam the globe, more than those pushed out for political, economic, or religious reasons. By 2010, this number will grow tenfold to 200 million. - The Heat is On -The High Stakes Battle Over Earth’s Threatened Climate - Ross Gelbspan - 1996

"It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Ninos are going to become more frequent, and they're going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we'll go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, we'll have El Nino upon El Nino, and that will become the norm. And you'll have an El Nino, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years," he said. - BBC November 7, 1997

Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people. - The Birmingham Post (England) July 26, 1999

A report last week claimed that within a decade, the disease (Malaria) will be common again on the Spanish coast. The effects of global warming are coming home to roost in the developed world. - The Guardian September 11, 1999

Officials with the Panama Canal Authority, managers of the locks and reservoirs since the United States relinquished control of the canal in 1999, warn that global warming, increased shipping traffic and bigger seagoing vessels could cripple the canal's capacity to operate within a decade. CNN November 1, 2000

In ten years time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu's nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels, CNN Mar 29, 2001

"Globally, 2002 is likely to be warmer than 2001 - it may even break the record set in 1998. - Daily Mirror August 2, 2002

Next year(2003)may be warmest recorded: Global temperatures in 2003 are expected to exceed those in 1998 - the hottest year to date - Telegraph UK- December 30, 2002

(The) extra energy, together with a weak El Nino, is expected to make 2005 warmer than 2003 and 2004 and perhaps even warmer than 1998 - Reuters February 11, 2005

NOAA announced its predictions for the 2006 hurricane season, saying it expects an "above normal" year with 13-16 named storms. Of these storms, the agency says it expects four to be hurricanes of category 3 or above, double the yearly average of prior seasons in recorded history. With experts calling the coming hurricane season potentially worse than last year's, oil prices have jumped 70 cents per barrel in New York and made similar leaps elsewhere. Economists anticipate that demand for oil will rise sharply over the summer, when as many as four major hurricanes could hit the United States. -- Seed Magazine 5/19/06

This year (2007) is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998, - ScienceDaily Jan. 5, 2007

Very Active 2007 Hurricane Season Predicted - The U.S. Atlantic basin will likely experience a very active hurricane season, the Colorado State University forecast team announced today, increasing its earlier prediction for the 2007 hurricane season. The team's forecast now anticipates 17 named storms forming in the Atlantic basin between June 1 and Nov. 30. Nine of the 17 storms are predicted to become hurricanes, and of those nine, five are expected to develop into intense or major hurricanes (Saffir/Simpson category 3-4-5) with sustained winds of 111 mph or greater. - ScienceDaily April 3, 2007

Warm (2007 – 2008) Winter Predicted for United States - NOAA forecasters are calling for above-average temperatures over most of the country - ScienceDailyOct. 11, 2007

Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer (2008), report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field. "We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history]," David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker. - National Geographic News June 20, 2008

I'm thinking that your problem may lie with how science is portrayed in the media and not with the actual science itself. And I'm all about that. Science is tricky, and the media basically sucks—on any topic. Thoughts?

I'm thinking the problem lies in the way that some scientists choose to dishonestly use science in order to further a political agenda. As Climategate has shown us, they aren't above manufacturing consent and aren't above hiding things in order to keep the truth from being known. The media just reports what they are given. You can't blame them for being shills.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

STUDY FORESEES 86 NEW POWER PLANTS TO COOL U.S. WHEN GLOBE GETS HOTTER: Global warming could force Americans to build 86 more power plants -- at a cost of $110 billion -- to keep all their air conditioners running 20 years from now, a new study says...Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010, and the drain on power would require the building of 86 new midsize power plants - Associated Press May 15, 1989

U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP - entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect - Associated Press June 30, 1989

'New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now,' - St. Louis Post-Dispatch Sept. 17, 1989

Some predictions for the next decade (1990's) are not difficult to make... Americans may see the '80s migration to the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in cooler climates. - Dallas Morning News December 5th 1989

"(By) 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots... "(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers... "The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands". - Michael Oppenheimer, The Environmental Defense Fund - "Dead Heat" 1990

Giant sand dunes may turn Plains to desert - Huge sand dunes extending east from Colorado's Front Range may be on the verge of breaking through the thin topsoil, transforming America's rolling High Plains into a desert, new research suggests. The giant sand dunes discovered in NASA satellite photos are expected to re- emerge over the next 20 to 50 years, depending on how fast average temperatures rise from the suspected "greenhouse effect," scientists believe. -Denver Post April 18, 1990

By 2000, British and American oil will have dimished to a trickle......Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North's greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live.....At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years. - 5000 Days to Save the Planet - Edward Goldsmith 1991

''I think we're in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left - we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.'' - ABC - The Miracle Planet April 22, 1990

The planet could face an "ecological and agricultural catastrophe" by the next decade if global warming trends continue - Carl Sagan - Buffalo News Oct. 15, 1990

Most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s and by the next century it will be too late. -- Thomas E. Lovejoy, Smithsonian Institution “Real Goods Alternative Energy Sourcebook,” Seventh Edition: February 1993

Today (in 1996) 25 million environmental refugees roam the globe, more than those pushed out for political, economic, or religious reasons. By 2010, this number will grow tenfold to 200 million. - The Heat is On -The High Stakes Battle Over Earth’s Threatened Climate - Ross Gelbspan - 1996

"It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Ninos are going to become more frequent, and they're going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we'll go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, we'll have El Nino upon El Nino, and that will become the norm. And you'll have an El Nino, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years," he said. - BBC November 7, 1997

Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people. - The Birmingham Post (England) July 26, 1999

A report last week claimed that within a decade, the disease (Malaria) will be common again on the Spanish coast. The effects of global warming are coming home to roost in the developed world. - The Guardian September 11, 1999

Officials with the Panama Canal Authority, managers of the locks and reservoirs since the United States relinquished control of the canal in 1999, warn that global warming, increased shipping traffic and bigger seagoing vessels could cripple the canal's capacity to operate within a decade. CNN November 1, 2000

In ten years time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu's nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels, CNN Mar 29, 2001

"Globally, 2002 is likely to be warmer than 2001 - it may even break the record set in 1998. - Daily Mirror August 2, 2002

Next year(2003)may be warmest recorded: Global temperatures in 2003 are expected to exceed those in 1998 - the hottest year to date - Telegraph UK- December 30, 2002

(The) extra energy, together with a weak El Nino, is expected to make 2005 warmer than 2003 and 2004 and perhaps even warmer than 1998 - Reuters February 11, 2005

NOAA announced its predictions for the 2006 hurricane season, saying it expects an "above normal" year with 13-16 named storms. Of these storms, the agency says it expects four to be hurricanes of category 3 or above, double the yearly average of prior seasons in recorded history. With experts calling the coming hurricane season potentially worse than last year's, oil prices have jumped 70 cents per barrel in New York and made similar leaps elsewhere. Economists anticipate that demand for oil will rise sharply over the summer, when as many as four major hurricanes could hit the United States. -- Seed Magazine 5/19/06

This year (2007) is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998, - ScienceDaily Jan. 5, 2007

Very Active 2007 Hurricane Season Predicted - The U.S. Atlantic basin will likely experience a very active hurricane season, the Colorado State University forecast team announced today, increasing its earlier prediction for the 2007 hurricane season. The team's forecast now anticipates 17 named storms forming in the Atlantic basin between June 1 and Nov. 30. Nine of the 17 storms are predicted to become hurricanes, and of those nine, five are expected to develop into intense or major hurricanes (Saffir/Simpson category 3-4-5) with sustained winds of 111 mph or greater. - ScienceDaily April 3, 2007

Warm (2007 – 2008) Winter Predicted for United States - NOAA forecasters are calling for above-average temperatures over most of the country - ScienceDailyOct. 11, 2007

Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer (2008), report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field. "We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history]," David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker. - National Geographic News June 20, 2008

I'm thinking the problem lies in the way that some scientists choose to dishonestly use science in order to further a political agenda. As Climategate has shown us, they aren't above manufacturing consent and aren't above hiding things in order to keep the truth from being known. The media just reports what they are given. You can't blame them for being shills.

Yeah, as I said earlier, the media sucks. Sorry if that's how you get your news.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Which is the exact same excuse we hear each and every time models have failed us. We were told the same thing back then. At some point, you really can't believe that people will sit there with a straight face and not laugh.

Also, manipulating data so you've got so broad a spread (ensuring they hit the "broad side of the barn") that you can't fail if the scenario you're pushing comes up short, really isn't anything to put much faith in.

Another cake and eat it too argument.

The models are always wrong, yet in the cases that they aren't, well the data was simply manipulated to reflect reality.

[dzp111]

Just found this. I've no clue about the article's accuracy but it sure looks interesting, to say the least:


U.K. climate scientist under investigation

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by dzp111 

Just found this. I've no clue about the article's accuracy but it sure looks interesting, to say the least:

U.K. climate scientist under investigation

"People have a right to speak up, but if they are muddled and confused, I do not believe they have the right to be called anything but muddled and confused," he said.

Funny.

[BadKosh]

Hanson tried to load up 200 years of data, with a cut-off of 1980 and with know data past that to be used to verify the models functionality, he has failed to do it. he has pissed away lots of bucks and time doing it. This is according to a NASA briefing I attended in the fall. The solar scientists had new data that more clearly showed the interaction between our planet and it's output. The GW folks, who are mostly college level instructors, professional scientists etc, did not seem to be able to show that they were up to date with the data, and the ones who had looked at the collection methods and quality of data said they saw some problems. This was in early October '09. The discussion of the computer models went on for some time and it was noted that none of them were even close, when trying to predict the near future. It seems the models don't currently work. it is therefore an unreliable tool. So is AlGore.

[Warren Pease]

I heard there were problems with 'the operating systems' something about bugs and security updates. It seems the computers don't work and are an unreliable tool. </ass>

Unlike temperatures, solar output hasn't increased in over 50 years. In fact, study of the sun shows that peak and averaged output has been declining over the last 30 years. We are currently in a deep lull in terms of solar activity. Less solar energy = higher temperatures?



File:Solar-cycle-data.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ebuddy]

Yayy Graphs! Here's one showing a correlation between the amplitude of solar irradiance and temperature change. Of course naysayers and skeptics don't have all that fancy 'puter stuff so they had to borrow one from an IPCC scientist.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Yeah, as I said earlier, the media sucks. Sorry if that's how you get your news.

Yeah. They are reporting that there's an oncoming man-made global warming catastrophe (and have for years) if we don't act quick. They do suck. I'm not sure how they could be so careless in screwing up the news.

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Another cake and eat it too argument.

The models are always wrong, yet in the cases that they aren't, well the data was simply manipulated to reflect reality.

I can create 10 models - all showing different results, promote one and let those with a political agenda do the same, then claim accuracy because one of the 10 models I created ended up being accurate.



SCIENCE!

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I can create 10 models - all showing different results, promote one and let those with a political agenda do the same, then claim accuracy because one of the 10 models I created ended up being accurate.



SCIENCE!

So, when people claim that the models are wrong, they are referring to the 9 out of the 10 that weren't "promoted?" I don't think that's what is happening...

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yayy Graphs! Here's one showing a correlation between the amplitude of solar irradiance and temperature change. Of course naysayers and skeptics don't have all that fancy 'puter stuff so they had to borrow one from an IPCC scientist.

The graph makes no sense.

The correlation coefficient is 1 and -1 for the last 300 years?

Increase in solar irradiance cause temperature to decrease in some years, but to increase in other years?

Looks like he is just bounding the correlation between 1 and -1, without actually calculating the correlation coefficient.

Assessment on Global Warming and Total Solar Irradiance

Here's a graph that actually tells you something. See the red line in the graph below?



That tells me an increasing positive trend. Explains why there's an increasing trend in global temperatures even though the cycle of solar irradiation have not increase. Same amount of solar irradiation is causing a much greater increase in temperatures in 2000 than it did in 1600.

What factors are causing the increase in correlation coefficient over the past 300 years? My guess is CO2.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yayy Graphs! Here's one showing a correlation between the amplitude of solar irradiance and temperature change. Of course naysayers and skeptics don't have all that fancy 'puter stuff so they had to borrow one from an IPCC scientist.

The solar irradiance appears to be a reconstruction based on the database sourced: Lean, J, 2004 Reconstructed Solar Irradiance. Actual measurements begin in 1980 IIRC.

It seems from reading the original webpage that a positive correlation exists when the change in both temperature and solar radiance from the previous year is the same sign (ie both positive, both negative). A negative correlation is when they are going in opposite directions.

Since solar irradiation historically only varies about 0.1% (1/10 of 1%) along it's decadal cycle, solar variation appears to have no direct influence on the year to year temperature trend.

Interesting find ebuddy. I like this guy-Nasif Nahle appears to be taking on both AGW'ers and non-AGW'ers! It's not everyday that someone who doesn't believe in AGW is banned from WUWT for dropping science!

[dzp111]

What about the "mini ice-age during the 70's?"

Ah yes.. the cold war, it's end anyway. Very busy politics at the time. Once more. Scientists had no say then.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

So, when people claim that the models are wrong, they are referring to the 9 out of the 10 that weren't "promoted?" I don't think that's what is happening...

They are claiming that the ones always used to promote some kind of alarmist fear that we are killing the environment always seem to be wrong.

In the above quotes, you can see that the alarmism reported always came from scientists, their research and models. The media didn't come up with that stuff on their own. It came from people who should have known better. Many times it's politicians and not the media who take the ball and run with it. That's what's happened of late. If you really want to pee on my head and tell me it's been raining, you can claim that scientists never said it would be warmer now than in late nineties, based on their theories and models, and that it didn't happen. I'm not about to buy an umbrella because of it though.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

The graph makes no sense.
The correlation coefficient is 1 and -1 for the last 300 years?
Increase in solar irradiance cause temperature to decrease in some years, but to increase in other years?
Looks like he is just bounding the correlation between 1 and -1, without actually calculating the correlation coefficient.

To be clear, I think you've interpreted this as "warming" and "cooling". He's simply illustrating the relationship between TSI amplitude and temperature fluctuation. The "coefficient" in this expression is indicating either positive or negative correlation. His supposition is that from 1985 to present, there has been either a negative or positive correlation between the intensity of the amplitude of solar irradiance and fluctuation in temperature; never zero correlation. i.e. it's not about "calculating a coefficient". The '-1' corresponds to negative feedbacks, the '+1' corresponds to positive feedbacks. He cites the last 8 years to affirm his position; the amplitude of the Intensity of Solar Irradiance has been decreasing, while the coefficients of correlation have been positive meaning that the temperature response (fluctuation) of the Earth is also decreasing.

Assessment on Global Warming and Total Solar Irradiance

Here's a graph that actually tells you something. See the red line in the graph below?

First of all, both charts your'e showing us here are provided by Nasif Nahle based on reconstructions of data produced by Lean J. 2004. These reconstructions are questionable based on whether or not they are agreeable? You're right though, this second chart is telling. Not only does it affirm the "no zero correlation" supposition, but it clearly shows that global temperatures fluctuate more wildly when TSI amplitudes are short. While this second chart is only showing sunspots, Nahle claims that the negative correlations correspond to negative feedbacks on Earth that are activated by the higher amplitudes of Solar Irradiance; for example, cloudiness, evaporation, increases of albedo, etc. Greenhouse gases do not generate heat and so thermodynamically cannot produce important rises in tropospheric temperature. We can also systematically correlate other factors, like the increase in interstellar cosmic rays, which could increase cloud accretion during solar minimums.

That tells me an increasing positive trend. Explains why there's an increasing trend in global temperatures even though the cycle of solar irradiation have not increase. Same amount of solar irradiation is causing a much greater increase in temperatures in 2000 than it did in 1600.

What factors are causing the increase in correlation coefficient over the past 300 years? My guess is CO2.

His guess is the amplitude of the fluctuations in the intensity of solar irradiance. In other words, imagine you were to superimpose the two charts, this should give you an idea of what Nahle is claiming.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To be clear, I think you've interpreted this as "warming" and "cooling". He's simply illustrating the relationship between TSI amplitude and temperature fluctuation. The "coefficient" in this expression is indicating either positive or negative correlation. His supposition is that from 1985 to present, there has been either a negative or positive correlation between the intensity of the amplitude of solar irradiance and fluctuation in temperature; never zero correlation. i.e. it's not about "calculating a coefficient". The '-1' corresponds to negative feedbacks, the '+1' corresponds to positive feedbacks. He cites the last 8 years to affirm his position; the amplitude of the Intensity of Solar Irradiance has been decreasing, while the coefficients of correlation have been positive meaning that the temperature response (fluctuation) of the Earth is also decreasing.

For the last 8 years (of the data shown), there have been 4 positive correlations and 4 negative correlations. So half the time, temperature went the opposite as solar irradiance. Or are we to believe the last two consecutive years are providing this 'trend?'

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

First of all, both charts your'e showing us here are provided by Nasif Nahle based on reconstructions of data produced by Lean J. 2004. These reconstructions are questionable based on whether or not they are agreeable? You're right though, this second chart is telling. Not only does it affirm the "no zero correlation" supposition, but it clearly shows that global temperatures fluctuate more wildly when TSI amplitudes are short...

Not sure how you can say that graph shows 'global temperatures fluctuate more wildly when TSI amplitudes are short' because 1) TSI is not graphed on that chart and 2) nothing can be said about the 'amplitude' of TSI when the only value can only be {1, -1}.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

While this second chart is only showing sunspots, Nahle claims that the negative correlations correspond to negative feedbacks on Earth that are activated by the higher amplitudes of Solar Irradiance; for example, cloudiness, evaporation, increases of albedo, etc. Greenhouse gases do not generate heat and so thermodynamically cannot produce important rises in tropospheric temperature. We can also systematically correlate other factors, like the increase in interstellar cosmic rays, which could increase cloud accretion during solar minimums.

Using his technique, a negative correlation is either 1) rising T/falling Tsi or 2) falling T/rising Tsi. In only one of those cases does it make sense that "the negative correlations correspond to negative feedbacks on Earth that are activated by the higher amplitudes of Solar Irradiance" as he says. In the other case, it would read something like 'the negative correlations correspond to positive feedbacks on earth actiivated by the lower amplitudes of Solar Irradiance.'

In other words, he attributes negative correlation with higher solar intensities, when it can apply to both higher and lower Tsi.

He's showing his bias. Without going into any detail on what those feedbacks possibly could be, he assumes that a change in Tsi will produce a similiar (direction) change in T, attributing any variation to a 'feedback.'

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

His guess is the amplitude of the fluctuations in the intensity of solar irradiance. In other words, imagine you were to superimpose the two charts, this should give you an idea of what Nahle is claiming.

A good analysis should not be left up to the imagination.

[BadKosh]

Why is it that we had more hot air when Clinton was in office?

[Wiskedjak]

Here's a theory on how global warming could lead to global cooling.
There Could Be an Ice Age Two Months from Now - Environment - io9

In a nutshell, as massive amounts of fresh water are dumped into the oceans, ocean currents are disrupted resulting in the global climate getting messed up.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Here's a theory on how global warming could lead to global cooling.
There Could Be an Ice Age Two Months from Now - Environment - io9

In a nutshell, as massive amounts of fresh water are dumped into the oceans, ocean currents are disrupted resulting in the global climate getting messed up.

It's been discuss for many years that a massive amount of fresh water due to melting ice sheets will shutdown the ocean currents know as the thermohaline circulation, which will lead to a places like England and Europe to freeze over.

Thermohaline circulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Global Warming Makes Sea Less Salty | LiveScience

Sea change: why global warming could leave Britain feeling the cold | Environment | The Guardian

[BadKosh]

So the seas get less salty and the planet gets cooler so the ice caps increase and the seas get salty again. And.....?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So the seas get less salty and the planet gets cooler so the ice caps increase and the seas get salty again. And.....?

...and most of the humans on earth die in the crossfire, especially northern latitudes, like the USA. WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?

[BadKosh]

I love America...I just hate the people.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So the seas get less salty and the planet gets cooler so the ice caps increase and the seas get salty again. And.....?

Yes, if that scenario actually happened the Earth would eventually balance itself out, but it'll take a *long* time (at least decades, if not centuries). That doesn't sound very pleasant for whomever happens to be living on the planet at the time. Of course, we probably won't be around for the worst of it, so who cares.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

For the last 8 years (of the data shown), there have been 4 positive correlations and 4 negative correlations. So half the time, temperature went the opposite as solar irradiance. Or are we to believe the last two consecutive years are providing this 'trend?'

It seems he'd have you believe that the positive fluctuation of temperature in 1998 is owed the previous consecutive 10 years of high amplitudes of Intensity of Solar Irradiance. It follows that the lower amplitudes will eventually result in a negative fluctuation of temperature.

Not sure how you can say that graph shows 'global temperatures fluctuate more wildly when TSI amplitudes are short' because 1) TSI is not graphed on that chart and 2) nothing can be said about the 'amplitude' of TSI when the only value can only be {1, -1}.

The graphs are presented in consecutive order, that is one providing a visual of SI amplitude and the next; sunspots in accordance with temperature fluctuation to give an overall picture. Where do you see that the only values attributed to amplitude of SI are 1, -1?

Using his technique, a negative correlation is either 1) rising T/falling Tsi or 2) falling T/rising Tsi. In only one of those cases does it make sense that "the negative correlations correspond to negative feedbacks on Earth that are activated by the higher amplitudes of Solar Irradiance" as he says. In the other case, it would read something like 'the negative correlations correspond to positive feedbacks on earth actiivated by the lower amplitudes of Solar Irradiance.'

In other words, he attributes negative correlation with higher solar intensities, when it can apply to both higher and lower Tsi.

It doesn't make sense to me to parse year-to-year data when Nahse is deducing a result from a 10-year trend of the amplitude of SI.

He's showing his bias. Without going into any detail on what those feedbacks possibly could be, he assumes that a change in Tsi will produce a similiar (direction) change in T, attributing any variation to a 'feedback.'

He does claim cloudiness, rainfall, albedo, atmospheric water vapor, aerosols, etc. as plausible feedbacks, but don't get me wrong here. If you're trying to tell me that a peer-reviewed scientist would show a bias or even run the risk of being flat-out wrong, you'll not hear too much argument from me or really anyone arguing against AGW hype. I wanted to show that there are graphs for everything.

A good analysis should not be left up to the imagination.

That's really all the state of this science will allow at this point and there's no shortage of imaginative conclusions from either supposition. See, we can hyper-critique Nahse's deductions by parsing year-to-year data and positive/negative correlations, but this degree of scrutiny somehow accepts the negative correlation between warming and CO2 increases; the former preceding the latter.

[Orion27]

And the big question is why should one assume real time correlation? There could be decades or centuries before the effects of solar maximum or minimums show cumulative effects. Stick a pot of cold water on the stove. Light a flame under it and raise the temperature. Now scale to the amount of water in oceans and one begins to appreciate solar influence. I find this whole discussion on micro climate laughable. I wonder if perturbation of earth orbit and rotation have been taken into consideration on these pages. I have not seen any references.
Any correlation between earth rotation and and ocean currents? Yes. Correlation between rotation perturbation and ocean currents? I guess these questions are a little beyond the scope of climatologists who focus so narrowly micro timeframes which don't appear to be scalable and data, MXD fused with temperature data from dubious sources and massaged and compiled with dubious algorithms.
And so, nations are expected to to sign treaties which would keep populations in perpetual poverty. 40% of the Indian population do not have electricity. Not to mention the billions of dollars to be transferred from the west to non-democratic nations and dictators
to fund what? A solar panel on thatched hut roof? Sounds like a plan. Next graph please.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

And the big question is why should one assume real time correlation? There could be decades or centuries before the effects of solar maximum or minimums show cumulative effects.

nvm

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

nvm

This will make you feel a lot better.
Arnold Schwarzenegger unveils dramatic climate change map which shows flooded San Francisco of the future | Mail Online

Google will save us! ( ".......technology will save us". Arnold Schwarzenegger )
I wonder if he ever Googled " Climategate " ? I guess the map was already made up
and he couldn't cancel Schmidt. If you look closely you can see Feinstein and Boxer in the background. Are those sandals Schmidt is wearing? He walks on water? Maybe we can put a Google LOGO and and internet connection on those solar panels destined for India, Afghanistan and Africa. And don't forget an Android. Gotta call home!

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

So, let's uncouple the political debate and just do the science.

It seems your rhetoric proceeded your agenda?


And I do suggest you look up "solar effects" and "earth's temperature." Although I guess you did qualify that statement a little with the "cumulative effects" bit (which of course is vague enough to mean anything...congratulations).

greg

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

It seems your rhetoric proceeded your agenda?


And I do suggest you look up "solar effects" and "earth's temperature." Although I guess you did qualify that statement a little with the "cumulative effects" bit (which of course is vague enough to mean anything...congratulations).

greg

So you have worked the data of earth orbit and rotation perturbation? How many years of data did you collate? How far back did you go? 1000, 2000 years? Just like Apple, there must be an App for that!

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Yes, if that scenario actually happened the Earth would eventually balance itself out, but it'll take a *long* time (at least decades, if not centuries). That doesn't sound very pleasant for whomever happens to be living on the planet at the time. Of course, we probably won't be around for the worst of it, so who cares.

Decades or centuries. Doesn't sound like anything but a weather related event, not climate as we;ve been told, which is over tens of thousands of years, unless we are talking about the little Ice age which didn't happen.....

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

So you have worked the data of earth orbit and rotation perturbation? How many years of data did you collate? How far back did you go? 1000, 2000 years? Just like Apple, there must be an App for that!

They didn't take continental drift and the alteration of the jet streams into account when looking back more than a billion years. With no accurate record keeping much before 1780 the older data is derived, I wonder how much fudging was done there. To keep that gravy train coming, I'll bet they did sloppy work there too.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The graphs are presented in consecutive order, that is one providing a visual of SI amplitude and the next; sunspots in accordance with temperature fluctuation to give an overall picture. Where do you see that the only values attributed to amplitude of SI are 1, -1?

Are you kidding me? All those blue triangles on the graph that have a value of either 1 or -1 and that are labeled 'Amplitude SI'!

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It doesn't make sense to me to parse year-to-year data when Nahse is deducing a result from a 10-year trend of the amplitude of SI.

Point me to anywhere in that website where he shows he's using 10 year averages. Am I the only one who thinks that 'Ann.' referred to annual? I searched looking for '10', 'year', 'average', 'trend', 'smooth' individually and none of those terms (if found at all) demonstrate that he's done any such thing.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That's really all the state of this science will allow at this point and there's no shortage of imaginative conclusions from either supposition. See, we can hyper-critique Nahse's deductions by parsing year-to-year data and positive/negative correlations, but this degree of scrutiny somehow accepts the negative correlation between warming and CO2 increases; the former preceding the latter.

Perfect example of psuedoscience Strong conclusions, but lacking any supporting data or logic.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

And the big question is why should one assume real time correlation? There could be decades or centuries before the effects of solar maximum or minimums show cumulative effects.

It's 2-3 years.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Are you kidding me? All those blue triangles on the graph that have a value of either 1 or -1 and that are labeled 'Amplitude SI'!

ebuddy cannot read graphs.

However, I must say it was a poorly constructed graph using psuedo-science.

[Chongo]

The email authors

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The email authors

Apparently, Milli Vanilli has more in common with this thread than we thought, based on past precedent (them having to return a major industry award because they were frauds like Al Gore):

Take back Al Gore's Oscar, 2 Academy members demand in light of Climategate | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times