[sek929]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

It shows that just like the sci-fi movies of the 1950's, anyone who is a 'scientist' must know what they are talking about. LOL Assumptions from the same mainstream media that claims Global Warming is man-made. The media isn't qualified to judge on such technical issues? So why are they supporting the Global Warming if they don't know what they are talking about?

If I remember those types of movies correctly then isn't it usually a case of the military tough guys not believing the scientists until it's to late and a giant ant eats Houston?

Also, why are you supporting anti-MMGW if you don't have any idea what you're talking about?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Interesting. Okay, the reason I keep coming back is because in all this time, you've not once given a reason why proponents' views are a priori more credible than those who challenge their conclusions.

Evidence obtained through scientific scrutiny is generally more credible than baseless opinion. I've told you, if you can present evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears, but you haven't. No one has, to my knowledge. As I've stated before, if someone does, I'll be the first to change my position on the subject.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Otherwise, do you seriously believe you've conclusively made your case?

Quite simply, the evidence is overwhelmingly in my favor. It would appear your opinion is not going to change no matter how much evidence is presented, so from your point of view, it is impossible for me to make my case.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You want science to speak in a language it simply doesn't so you can point at the fiery rhetoric and dismiss their case without having to open an article, a book, or God forbid; your mind.

I'm not looking for a transcendental reason why our universe works. If you want to explore ear candles and magic crystals, go ahead, but it is not going to validate your assertions regarding scientific matters nor lend any sort of credibility to your argument.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

• Have you quantified your consensus yet? Is it 300 climate scientists? 800 climate scientists? 3,000 climate scientists? 23,000 scientists? Several hundred authors, policymakers, economists, and politicians? At what point does this consensus no longer represent a consensus?

A scientific consensus is general agreement amongst scientists in a general field of study, which the current IPCC report reflects. A consensus does not mean unanimous. Authors, policymakers, economists, and politicians are not considered in a scientific consensus because they are not scientists in the field of study being discussed.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

• The study I cite must simply be peer reviewed/published in a reputable journal? Okay, which ones will you accept as reputable journals?

I'd accept anything from this list, it's pretty extensive:
List of scientific journals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

• How many studies would you like to see, just one? I mean you said "a peer-reviewed study", but I want to be sure.

If you can find even one, I'd review it, sure.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

• Does this study have to say "Al Gore is a poop-butt, stinky-face" or "AGW is a myth"?

No.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

• Short list of climate scientists you will not accept as contributors to the peer-reviewed study published in a reputable journal criteria please.

Lists are generally meaningless. Any legitimate study will list members of a research team and contributing members and resources.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

• If there is a 4-person deep or greater connection to a Gas-N-Stop or any petroleum product, should this exclude them from consideration? If yes, as a side-question; would this also exclude anyone you'd otherwise consider a legitimate source if the connections were say... Greenpeace, Sierra Club, GE, or any company and/or organization trading in the Carbon Credit offset commodity?

I won't discredit research funded by organizations and companies provided the research is published in one of the journals I listed above.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Excellent then, we should be able to get started right away.

Have fun, maybe we'll both learn something.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Good grief another multi-page Glowarm thread.

Yeah, sure, the sky is falling. We get it already.

[ebuddy]

We'll get started with these then:

Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/J...llis04GRL1.pdf
Effects of bias in solar radiative transfer codes on global climate model simulations
Global climate models violate scaling of the obser... [Phys Rev Lett. 2002] - PubMed result
Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human Induced Climate Change?

Let me know when you're ready for the next batch. Thanks.

[Wiskedjak]

Wait ... last time you guys were saying that the global warming being observed was a result of natural processes. Now you're telling us that there's *no* global warming at all? How are we supposed to believe what you're saying if you keep flip-flopping?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Wait ... last time you guys were saying that the global warming being observed was a result of natural processes. Now you're telling us that there's *no* global warming at all? How are we supposed to believe what you're saying if you keep flip-flopping?

Other way around. First they were claiming there was no warming at all. 10 years of arguing on this forum I've managed to bring them around to the fact that the climate, on average, is warming. Now they say, with their arms crossed and stomping their feet, OK, fine, it's warming, but it's all natural!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human Induced Climate Change?

From their "conclusions:" "Our working hypothesis is that the rapid valley warming is caused by the massive growth in irrigated agriculture."

Ebuddy, why did you think this paper supports your claim? Their conclusion is that the difference observed is due to human activities (agriculture).

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature

Has to do with El Nino and La Nina warming and cooling patterns. Not sure why you posted this link.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/J...llis04GRL1.pdf

The Urban Heat Island Effect was debunked almost immediately after that study was published. You'll need to find something more recent than 2004.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Effects of bias in solar radiative transfer codes on global climate model simulations

Explores the differences in various energy exchange algorithms. Bias, in this context, meaning one algorithm showing a different trend than the other.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Global climate models violate scaling of the obser... [Phys Rev Lett. 2002] - PubMed result

Viability of current (2002?) climate models, suggesting improvements. It's 2010, these changes have been measured and made if appropriate. Doesn't change anything.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human Induced Climate Change?

A 2006 study on microclimate, specifically central California, and the effects irrigation may have on it. Increased vegetation, water surface, etc. may be having an effect on the Central Valley microclimate. This does exactly help your argument, since the study supports the theory of an anthropological warming trend in the central valley.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Let me know when you're ready for the next batch. Thanks.

Why don't you just post the link to the Conservative website you got these from, and I'll tell you why they're no longer valid.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

From their "conclusions:" "Our working hypothesis is that the rapid valley warming is caused by the massive growth in irrigated agriculture."

Ebuddy, why did you think this paper supports your claim? Their conclusion is that the difference observed is due to human activities (agriculture).

Because of another statement in their "conclusion":
Our working hypothesis is that the rapid valley warming is caused by the massive growth in irrigated agriculture. Such human engineering of the environment has changed a high-albedo desert into a darker, moister, vegetated plain, thus altering the surface energy balance in a way we suggest has created the results found in this study. Additionally, if these results are confirmed, the lack of long-term warming in the generally undeveloped Sierra Nevada (annual mean trend, 1910–2003, −0.02° ± 0.1°C decade–1) coupled with significant, nighttime-only warming in the valley, suggests a regional inconsistency compared with twentieth-century simulations of climate forced by human influences other than land use changes.

I've posted pictures of biased locations of temperature sensor sites as contributors to warming via UHI and you didn't suggest this was also evidence of "man-made global warming". Why not?

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I've posted pictures of biased locations of temperature sensor sites as contributors to warming via UHI and you didn't suggest this was also evidence of "man-made global warming". Why not?

Biased? Already? You meant biased to the cool side, right?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Biased? Already? You meant biased to the cool side, right?

Your post is here.

Yet another example of why I read ebuddy's list of "sources", and didn't even bother to think about responding when I saw this exact same argument again. It's a wasted cause. He'll just make the exact same argument again in 6 months, with a different list of sources. Debunk those, and the same argument will pop up again in another 6 months.

Honestly - there might even be something good in there. Maybe. I won't read it, though. Unfortunate.

greg

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

...suggests a regional inconsistency compared with twentieth-century simulations of climate forced by human influences other than land use changes.[/I]

Every climatologist -- and even I've mentioned this a dozen times at least -- already know that any changes to the temperature of the overall climate will have varying (if any) affects on local microclimates. That's why predicting weather patterns is so damn difficult. Varying topology creates all sorts of localized weather phenomenon.

The line you just boldfaced is not contradictory to current climate models.


On a side note, California is the only state in the United States that has all major climates represented within its boarders, from deserts and tundra to snowy mountains and rain forests.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Every climatologist -- and even I've mentioned this a dozen times at least -- already know that any changes to the temperature of the overall climate will have varying (if any) affects on local microclimates. That's why predicting weather patterns is so damn difficult. Varying topology creates all sorts of localized weather phenomenon.
The line you just boldfaced is not contradictory to current climate models.
On a side note, California is the only state in the United States that has all major climates represented within its boarders, from deserts and tundra to snowy mountains and rain forests.

Right, that's why the IPCC ARs and subsequent media hype are littered with references to regional phenomena and studies. Yes, global temperature anomalies do have varying and at times negligible impacts on microclimates, but the study was intended to show that warming biases in the irrigated San Joaquin Valley and nearby nonirrigated Sierra Nevada for example, do not reconcile with model simulations predicated on popular AGW hypothesis.

This region is being used as an analog. Any particular reason why this team is moronic in so-doing or is this the "it's not true! bananas-in-my-ears" defense?

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Every climatologist -- and even I've mentioned this a dozen times at least -- already know that any changes to the temperature of the overall climate will have varying (if any) affects on local microclimates. That's why predicting weather patterns is so damn difficult. Varying topology creates all sorts of localized weather phenomenon.

The line you just boldfaced is not contradictory to current climate models.

On a side note, California is the only state in the United States that has all major climates represented within its boarders, from deserts and tundra to snowy mountains and rain forests.

My first thought was the rain shadow effect. I don't know what effects increased moisture (from temps and irrigation) rising into the Sierra Nevadas has on the climate there. Does increased water vapor cause more precipitation, and therefore more cooling in the mountains. Does water precipitating out of the air cause that air to cool? Or warm? (I wish I remembered more from thermodynamics.) Would more precipitation cause cooler temps in the observed mountainous region?

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yes, global temperature anomalies do have varying and at times negligible impacts on microclimates, but the study was intended to show that warming biases in the irrigated San Joaquin Valley and nearby nonirrigated Sierra Nevada for example, do not reconcile with model simulations predicated on popular AGW hypothesis.

I'd be surprised if the simulations had that small of a grid (or that great of a resolution). It's only 60-100 miles from center of the valley to the tops of the Sierra Madres. Of course, we'd have to know to which of the many simulations you were referring to know for sure.

[Added: FWIW, Wikipedia reports 1.25° x 1.25° grids, which in that area is ~80 miles a side. Other sources indicate at least 2.5° grid for simulation.]

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Has to do with El Nino and La Nina warming and cooling patterns. Not sure why you posted this link.

Interesting. I'm equally as confused why you'd ask.
The results showed that SOI accounted for 81% of the variance in tropospheric temperature anomalies in the tropics. Overall the results suggest that the Southern Oscillation exercises a consistently dominant influence on mean global temperature, with a maximum effect in the tropics, except for periods when equatorial volcanism causes ad hoc cooling. That mean global tropospheric temperature has for the last 50 years fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI of 5–7 months earlier shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation.

You agreed that it doesn't have to say Al Gore is a poop-butt, stinky face right?

The Urban Heat Island Effect was debunked almost immediately after that study was published. You'll need to find something more recent than 2004.

Then why didn't you cite a more recent debunking? Regardless, UHI had already been debunked since 1990 right? I mean, there have been a number of studies marginalizing the impact of urbanization such as Peterson, 2003; Peterson and Owen, 2005; and Parker again in 2006. Jones et al. found that the impact of urbanization could account for at most, 0.058 deg C century-1 from a Karl et al. paper in 1988. Jones then publishes a paper in 2007 (i.e. more recent than 2004) citing urban related warming over China shown to be about 0.1°C decade−1 over the period 1951–2004. The debunking seems to be moving in the wrong direction. In fact, other studies suggest a significant contribution to observed temperature changes such as this 2009 paper - Urban warming in Japanese cities and its relation to climate change monitoring. UHI is of such little concern, NOAA marginalizes its significance in the training material they use for location teams providing examples of poor sites such as those on page 31 of their supplement.

Explores the differences in various energy exchange algorithms. Bias, in this context, meaning one algorithm showing a different trend than the other.

Unfortunately OlePigeon, it shows much more than that -

To achieve the objective stated above, it was necessary to consider a small number of clear-sky and homogeneous overcast cloud cases. The cases considered revealed that most 1D codes used for research and by weather and climate models underestimate atmospheric absorption of solar radiation. For overhead sun and the standard tropical atmosphere, this underestimation was 􏰉20 W m􏰅2 relative to the benchmark models, which included an LBL code that has been compared extensively to detailed observations. The majority of this bias almost certainly results from the lack of water vapor continuum absorption in 1D models.

Any model that cannot adequately account for natural phenomena will most assuredly minimize the contribution of natural variability.

Viability of current (2002?) climate models, suggesting improvements. It's 2010, these changes have been measured and made if appropriate. Doesn't change anything.

Link please? This is the... "Oh that ol' chestnut? They fixed that." argument.

A 2006 study on microclimate, specifically central California, and the effects irrigation may have on it. Increased vegetation, water surface, etc. may be having an effect on the Central Valley microclimate. This does exactly help your argument, since the study supports the theory of an anthropological warming trend in the central valley.

Funny, I don't hear much from the LESS LAND-USE NOW bunch or anyone interested in land offset credits. So, we just grow some trees and we're cool then? Excellent. I'll find a parking lot and get started right away. Sounds a hell of a lot less involved than some of the other ideas I've seen around here.

Why don't you just post the link to an AGW alarmist website and I'll tell you why they're no longer valid.

IPCC

So... it's about a political/financial conflict of interest now eh? Of course for whatever reason this argument only moves in one direction; yours.

Feel free to disregard the above request for a link. I've lost interest in this discussion with you OlePigeon. You'll have to go digging for those "Conservative" papers whenever it is you want to hear a different perspective I guess. I'm taking a break from this place for a while.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This region is being used as an analog. Any particular reason why this team is moronic in so-doing or is this the "it's not true! bananas-in-my-ears" defense?

Your answer lies in the introduction of the study, if you had bothered to red it:

"Long-term changes in climate response variables, such as surface temperature, are important to quantify as climate forcing parameters change. Because some of these changing forcing parameters are induced by human activity (e.g., enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations and land use changes), it is necessary to know precisely what the magnitudes of responses are so that attribution of the causes may be possible."

As I stated, microclimates behave differently when compared to the climate as a whole. This study is covering how human activity is affecting a localized climate, and if that activity correlates to the overall warming trend. According to this study, it would appear that human activity is affecting the local climate at a different rate than that of the overall climate.

Even though this phenomenon appears to be localized, it doesn't preclude the effects humans may have on the environment as a whole. If anything, because the California Central Valley is well contained, it may give researchers a much smaller area to focus on so they can develop better climate models. Think of California as the petri dish of climatology.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Funny, I don't hear much from the LESS LAND-USE NOW bunch or anyone interested in land offset credits. So, we just grow some trees and we're cool then? Excellent. I'll find a parking lot and get started right away. Sounds a hell of a lot less involved than some of the other ideas I've seen around here.

That's probably because you don't actually pay attention to this issue and whenever it pops up just dig up obscure articles that you don't really bother to read first.

Otherwise, you might know that land-use is a huge environmental issue in and of itself.

greg

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I've posted pictures of biased locations of temperature sensor sites as contributors to warming via UHI and you didn't suggest this was also evidence of "man-made global warming". Why not?

I'm fairly certain you're smart enough to know that, while some weather sensor locations are going to be located in warmer-than-average urban locations (climatologists like to measure urban temps as well, you know), other sensor locations are going to be located in cooler-than-average locations.



I'm fairly certain that for every picture you find of a warmer-than-average location, I can find one of a cooler-than-average location.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I'm fairly certain you're smart enough to know that, while some weather sensor locations are going to be located in warmer-than-average urban locations (climatologists like to measure urban temps as well, you know), other sensor locations are going to be located in cooler-than-average locations.



I'm fairly certain that for every picture you find of a warmer-than-average location, I can find one of a cooler-than-average location.

Um...what?


Its not about "warmer-than-average" vs "cooler-than-average."

Its about temperatures that are artificially raised due to nearby heat sources, thus creating bias in the results. Really? You didn't get that?

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Um...what?


Its not about "warmer-than-average" vs "cooler-than-average."

Its about temperatures that are artificially raised due to nearby heat sources, thus creating bias in the results. Really? You didn't get that?

This is the crux of the argument. Though, studies have shown that poor siting does not artificially inflate temps. In fact, they actually run cooler than properly sited sites. My response to ebuddy has a link (to a previous thread) that links that study.

The Urban Heat Island can be considered " poor-siting " writ large. Though, even though cities are warmer than their rural counterparts, there is no evidence that warming seen globally is due simply to the warmer cities. In other words, there are temperature stations outside of cities. Moreover, weather stations in- and outside of cities both show a consistent rise in temperatures.

Think about two buckets, one is 1/3 full, the other 2/3 full. One has more water, but if you slowly add the same amount of water to both, their increase in water is exactly the same. Simply because one bucket is more full than the other doesn't allow you to deny that the amount of water is increasing in either bucket.

Conversely, because there is more water in the fuller bucket than before doesn't mean that there isn't more in the smaller bucket either... (I hate analogies)

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Um...what?


Its not about "warmer-than-average" vs "cooler-than-average."

Its about temperatures that are artificially raised due to nearby heat sources, thus creating bias in the results. Really? You didn't get that?

yes, and my photo shows temperatures being dropped by nearby cold sources.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Interesting where this thread ended up!

[BadKosh]

Weather or climate?

[Shaddim]

Oh Snap. Looks like they were wrong. What now?

[ort888]

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

So a "Senior Fellow" of a corporate-sponsored anti-global warming organization thinks that new data backs up his claim? WHODATHUNKIT!?!

[Shaddim]

or you could actually read the findings and not just make faces at the reporter...

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite:

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

[ort888]

So when scientists claim there is global warming it's...

"THEY HAVE AN AGENDA! IT'S BIAS! SOMETHING IS WRONG!"

But when a few scientists find some data conservatives like its...

"LOOK AT THE SCIENCE! LOOK WHAT SCIENCE HAS FOUND!"

Are we to believe that based on these new findings everything about global warming is suddenly wrong? Why can we trust these scientists and this data and not the thousands who have made previous findings?

Look, I have no idea if global warming exists or not. I'm not a climate scientist and I don't want to be. But I'm pretty sure that it's at least worth looking into. Maybe this new data is good news and we have nothing to worry about. That would be great. Or maybe we still just don't know. I have no idea.

I do know that ALL of these people have agendas and none of us really know yet what the heck is going on. We probably never will.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ort888 

So when scientists claim there is global warming it's...

"THEY HAVE AN AGENDA! IT'S BIAS! SOMETHING IS WRONG!"

But when a few scientists find some data conservatives like its...

"LOOK AT THE SCIENCE! LOOK WHAT SCIENCE HAS FOUND!"

Are we to believe that based on these new findings everything about global warming is suddenly wrong? Why can we trust these scientists and this data and not the thousands who have made previous findings?

So, you don't want to read the findings? Fine. What it says is that heat is leaving the planet faster, much faster, than ground-based tests have shown. It's a new perspective that we've not had access to before, and maybe it will help scientists fix their models, if they're interested in actually doing that.

FWIW, I'm a believer in "climate change", IMO, it is happening. I'm just not convinced that it's happening for the reasons Gore and Co. feel it's happening.

[ort888]

I only read things that reconfirm my deep-seeded confirmation bias.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I only read things that reconfirm my deep-seeded confirmation bias.

Oh, for gods' sake, get up. You can do better than that.

[ort888]

What do you want me to say? I'm not a climate scientist. I skimmed the report. It sounds pretty good, but I don't know. I don't know what it really means. How can I? I make retail advertising for a living. I raise my kid. I didn't go to school for this stuff. I don't have an interest in pouring through endless online scientific reports on this subject to form a really clear cut opinion. I can't just read one article and go... "Welp, that it. This changes everything." Maybe the info is faulty. Maybe it's a lot more complicated. I don't know.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I do know that ALL of these people have agendas and none of us really know yet what the heck is going on. We probably never will.

[ort888]

I don't understand science, but I do understand bias.

The guy who wrote this report is an anti-climate change evangelist probably on the payroll of EXXON.

ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Roy W. Spencer

This isn't the new findings of some random scientists. This is a reinterpretations of data by someone who has made a career out of disproving global warming exists.

[Shaddim]

It isn't a "reinterpretation of data", this is new data we haven't had access to before.

What I'm wondering is, if it is true will climate change zealots accept it? Aren't scientists supposed to study new findings and explore the possibility that current models are incorrect? Even if it means eating crow and possibly losing grant money.

[ort888]

Just google this guys name. He's not a climate scientist. He's a man doing everything in his power to disprove global warming. He also writes books on Free Market Economics. He has an active agenda.

Now, maybe he's on to something. I don't know. But I seriously doubt it.

[Shaddim]

I think it's a pretty safe bet that, regardless of the voracity of the data, climate scientists will dismiss it. It simply isn't in their best interest.

[CollinG3G4]

Does global warming really matter? Every few years there is another "landmark" study that claims to have made a decisive conclusion either for or against the issue. We've probably had an influence over the past ~200 years, however, our contribution is so small (considering the size of the system, over time), it's nearly impossible to measure with any certainty. Hence the back and forth dialog from the scientific community.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I think it's a pretty safe bet that, regardless of the voracity of the data, climate scientists will dismiss it. It simply isn't in their best interest.

It's probably true. They are, after all, computer models (sorry "alarmist computer models"—that phrase, literally used 10 times in the article, constitues 5% of all it's words) and by their nature are generalizations of physical processes stretched across grids that span hundreds of square/cubic kilometers.

Oddly enough, Spencer's third graph shows that the results from the "alarmist" computer models actually turn out to be far too conservative in describing the actual heat flux into/out of the atmosphere.

Conservative is apparently the new alarmist.

Despite any ground-breaking work contained herein, the fact remains the 2000's were warmer than the 1990's which were warmer than the 1980's, etc.

[edit to add: I said that the reaction is far too conservative, but I guess my point is this. The article says "The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show". The graph shows that this is true, but also the corollary is true. While the models "hold on to" the heat longer than reality, it also takes more energy to "heat up" that air in the first place. The models, essentially, fault is that they are far too sluggish to react to these forcings]

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by CollinG3G4 

Does global warming really matter? Every few years there is another "landmark" study that claims to have made a decisive conclusion either for or against the issue. We've probably had an influence over the past ~200 years, however, our contribution is so small (considering the size of the system, over time), it's nearly impossible to measure with any certainty. Hence the back and forth dialog from the scientific community.

This is pretty much how I feel on the issue.

The problem I have, is people take something that should be reasonable for just about everyone, like: "Hey, let's all try and take care of the earth, and make our energy use as efficient as possible. No need to get crazy and pretend we're going back to the stone age, just let's just develop new technologies and use what we have efficiently." and turn it into: "OMG!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!!!!!! MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS GOING TO BAKE US ALL! QUICK! GIVE ENDLESS POWER TO POLITICIANS THAT CROW THE LOUDEST THAT THEY KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR EVERYONE!! DO WHATEVER THEY SAY! GIVE THEM CONTROL OVER ALL INDUSTRIES, ESPECIALLY THE ONES THEY HAVE ZERO EXPERIENCE WITH!!! REGULATE AND STRANGLE EVERYTHING AND SCREW HOW MUCH MONEY IT COSTS ANY AND EVERYONE!!!!! REPENT SINNERS!!!!!!! DOWN WITH CAPITALISM!!!!!!!! TURN OVER YOUR LIFE TO ANY POLITICAL HACK WHO IS THUMPING THEIR ENVIRO-BIBLE THE LOUDEST OR ELSE YOU'RE GOING TO BURN UP AND DIEEEE!!!!!!!! SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECHHHH!!!!!!!! Etc. etc...."

None of the people constantly punching the MMGW panic button trying to control everybody else (their true motivation) has a freakin' CLUE what's really going on any more than anyone else does. And for pete's sake, the old "The World is Coming to an End any day now, REPENT SINNERS!!!" is pretty much the OLDEST political/religious ploy to control other people that there is. But lo and behold, it still works.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Oh Snap. Looks like they were wrong. What now?

No, for a few reasons:

1. NASA was not involved in any way except that the data came from their satellite.
2. The data has already been discussed and adjusted in current models, it is a non-issue.
3. The author of the paper and press release works for the Heartland Institute, and the research conducted by Roy Spencer. Roy Spencer, if you don't know, is an Intelligent Design proponent and is devoutly against climate change. He is the self described "Climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show."

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CollinG3G4 

Every few years there is another "landmark" study that claims to have made a decisive conclusion either for or against the issue.

I'll issue the same challenge I did to eBuddy. Please name 3 peer reviewed studies that decisively concludes against climate change.

eBuddy was not successful, so you're welcome to give it a go. Here's an extensive list of acceptable peer reviewed scientific journals for your consideration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tific_journals

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

This is pretty much how I feel on the issue.

The problem I have, is people take something that should be reasonable for just about everyone, like: "Hey, let's all try and take care of the earth, and make our energy use as efficient as possible. No need to get crazy and pretend we're going back to the stone age, just let's just develop new technologies and use what we have efficiently."

...

None of the people constantly punching the MMGW panic button trying to control everybody else (their true motivation) has a freakin' CLUE what's really going on any more than anyone else does. And for pete's sake, the old "The World is Coming to an End any day now, REPENT SINNERS!!!" is pretty much the OLDEST political/religious ploy to control other people that there is. But lo and behold, it still works.

I agree, actually. There are idiots on the left smashing their drums and screaming the sky is falling and pushing halfassed measures that do absolutely nothing except screw everyone over. The fact that the Corn Industry is lobbying their next election has nothing to do with them pushing an almost useless fuel additive.

Then there are the idiots on the right that, instead of attacking the policy and coming up with a constructive and reasonable counter suggestion, they attempt to attack the science... which at this point in the game is just stupid. The fact that Land Rover is lobbying their next election has nothing to do with them claiming that climate change is bunk and we don't need better fuel economy.

Scientists are generally not politicians, and it's one of the most common criticisms of the scientific community: making that data easy for people to understand and not be misconstrued by people looking to take advantage of it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I'll issue the same challenge I did to eBuddy. Please name 3 peer reviewed studies that decisively concludes against climate change.

Exhibit A of a ruse ladies and gentlemen!

eBuddy was not successful, so you're welcome to give it a go. Here's an extensive list of acceptable peer reviewed scientific journals for your consideration.

Surely an enthusiast of science could understand that this is not how science works. ebuddy may not have been successful in explaining science to you, but this isn't because of my lack of interest in the subject. The fact is you will not find a study that would decisively conclude against climate change. Why?

• No one, I repeat, no one disputes climate change. Cite any cigar-chomping, SUV-driving, Exxon-motivated, anti-global warming zealot you can find and not once will you find denial of a changing climate. Science produces competing theories on a matter, not bent on public outcries of debunkings for the expedient online arguments of zealots. BTW - Why are you not calling it Global Warming any more olepigeon? Why are you not calling it MMGW or AGW? Are you sufficiently vague yet or can I look forward to your usage of simply; climate going forward?
• The dispute is on the factors that induce climate change. ebuddy has produced numerous, peer-reviewed studies indicating a number of factors for climate change including solar cycles and tsi, well-documented oscillation, UHI, influence of clouds; factors that had been given short shrift in prior models. Perhaps my lack of success in citing these numerous peer-reviewed studies hinges on your willingness to accept them? Truly fascinating, but not surprising.
• The dispute is on the degree of change over time, in what direction, the span of time used for analysis, and the conclusions based on climate modeling. ebuddy has cited numerous, peer-reviewed studies to indicate the challenges in measurement as supposed by those who authored the models themselves, patent holders of the instrumentation used including the remote sensing discussed in the most recent example, the disconnect between anthropogenic factors and the history of change over time, the admitted infancy of the discipline, and the fallacious usage of the hockey-stick graph as well as the new spaghetti graph that incorporates it as well as other manipulations of data to... hide the declines or illustrate the inclines.

While I do not personally consider myself an authority on climate, my name does not get repeatedly invoked in threads like this because of my relative absence on the matter olepigeon. Try again.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

*snort*

Your name gets repeatedly invoked because of the whack-a-mole effect.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No one, I repeat, no one disputes climate change. Cite any cigar-chomping, SUV-driving, Exxon-motivated, anti-global warming zealot you can find and not once will you find denial of a changing climate. Science produces competing theories on a matter, not bent on public outcries of debunkings for the expedient online arguments of zealots. BTW - Why are you not calling it Global Warming any more olepigeon? Why are you not calling it MMGW or AGW? Are you sufficiently vague yet or can I look forward to your usage of simply; climate going forward?

Just for clarity: are you saying you don't dispute climate change, but you do dispute global warming?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

The only way you could get more purposefully vague than 'climate change' is to constantly ask "Do you dispute weather??!?"

In fact, I predict that's the next fallback label.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The only way you could get more purposefully vague than 'climate change' is to constantly ask "Do you dispute weather??!?"

In fact, I predict that's the next fallback label.

Hence my question.

[BadKosh]

Clouds are to blame


Does NASA Data Show Global Warming Lost in Space? - FoxNews.com

[CollinG3G4]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I'll issue the same challenge I did to eBuddy. Please name 3 peer reviewed studies that decisively concludes against climate change.
eBuddy was not successful, so you're welcome to give it a go.

That's an impossible challenge considering that the climate is constantly changing over time in a not so predictable manor. My point was that the climate will do what it has always done and human influences play minor roles. Had our contribution been more profound, then it would be apparent when plotted with past climate data. The constant back and forth, says to me, whatever influence we've had is not enough to overcome the intrinsic rate of background change in a dramatic way.

"Global warming" or "climate change" is nothing new. It has happened before.