|
On February 09 2012 11:19 shuurai wrote:
sluggaslomoo,
I'm sorry, but I fail to identify a single avenue for discussion in your posting(s). You flung a lot of baseless accusations in my general direction, most of which match your demeanor much better than mine.
You also seem to have trouble parsing common sayings, figuring out whether a post was addressed to you, distinguishing 'graphs' from 'models', and denominating data volumes. "250 mgs", seriously? Are those milligrams, or what?
Please, leave me alone. And let's just agree to disagree.
Sorry I was typing a bit fast and meant to write megs as a colloquial term. Its 250MB of data. Please come back to me when you have your graph. Thanks.
|
Ok. How about never? Is never ok for you?
|
On February 09 2012 11:27 shuurai wrote:
Ok. How about never? Is never ok for you?
Yeah its perfectly fine, but it just proves my statement that you don't like looking at facts and are merely in it to win the argument at any cost necessary.
|
I'm quite certain that in the bubble of your mind, it actually does. Gifted with that kind of impeccable reasoning, have you applied for a job in climate science yet?
|
On February 09 2012 11:33 shuurai wrote:
I'm quite certain that in the bubble of your mind, it actually does. Gifted with that kind of impeccable reasoning, have you applied for a job in climate science yet?
It doesn't take a genius to create a graph out of raw data. With 39,000 thermometers around the globe, the data cannot and will not lie. It is a trend that even a 10 year old could look at the graph and say, its warming.
So please go ahead and make what sceptics claim as "computer models" with so called "complex calculations", which is really just the average temps over X amount of time. And after you have done this, please tell me with a straight face that the earth is cooling or will cool in the next decade.
Thanks
|
On February 09 2012 11:40 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 11:33 shuurai wrote:
I'm quite certain that in the bubble of your mind, it actually does. Gifted with that kind of impeccable reasoning, have you applied for a job in climate science yet? It doesn't take a genius to create a graph out of raw data. With 39,000 thermometers around the globe, the data cannot and will not lie. It is a trend that even a 10 year old could look at the graph and say, its warming. So please go ahead and make what sceptics claim as "computer models" with so called "complex calculations", which is really just the average temps over X amount of time. And after you have done this, please tell me with a straight face that the earth is cooling or will cool in the next decade. Thanks
It's the simplicity you attach to climate models that baffels me, not to mention the emotion u plug into your statements instead of listening to what guys like Roy Spencer say using pure logic. The issue for "deniers" is not the existence of global warming (and I'm saying this for the last time and then I'm done with this thread) but the DEGREE OF ALARMISM SURROUNDING GLOBAL WARMING AND ANTHROPOLOGICAL EFFECTS. As Roy stated in that debate, he does not deny his colleague's theory on CO2 having a warming effect on the earth but he disregards the theory that CO2 has this magical multiplying effect or that warming is something to worry about, not to mention the stagnation in global temperatures over the past 6 or 7 years.
|
On February 09 2012 11:45 slytown wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 11:40 sluggaslamoo wrote:On February 09 2012 11:33 shuurai wrote:
I'm quite certain that in the bubble of your mind, it actually does. Gifted with that kind of impeccable reasoning, have you applied for a job in climate science yet? It doesn't take a genius to create a graph out of raw data. With 39,000 thermometers around the globe, the data cannot and will not lie. It is a trend that even a 10 year old could look at the graph and say, its warming. So please go ahead and make what sceptics claim as "computer models" with so called "complex calculations", which is really just the average temps over X amount of time. And after you have done this, please tell me with a straight face that the earth is cooling or will cool in the next decade. Thanks It's the simplicity you attach to climate models that baffels me, not to mention the emotion u plug into your statements instead of listening to what guys like Roy Spencer say using pure logic. The issue for "deniers" is not the existence of global warming (and I'm saying this for the last time and then I'm done with this thread) but the DEGREE OF ALARMISM SURROUNDING GLOBAL WARMING AND ANTHROPOLOGICAL EFFECTS. As Roy stated in that debate, he does not deny his colleague's theory on CO2 having a warming effect on the earth but he disregards the theory that CO2 has this magical multiplying effect or that warming is something to worry about, not to mention the stagnation in global temperatures over the past 6 or 7 years.
This is hilarious.
It's the simplicity you attach to climate models that baffels me
Download the data, put it into MATLAB, done.
not to mention the emotion u plug into your statements instead of listening to what guys like Roy Spencer say using pure logic
So I should basically I, instead of listening to what a graph made from raw data tells me, should instead listen to a guy who has to cover his own ass using pure logic because he modified his own data?
The issue for "deniers" is not the existence of global warming (and I'm saying this for the last time and then I'm done with this thread) but the DEGREE OF ALARMISM SURROUNDING GLOBAL WARMING AND ANTHROPOLOGICAL EFFECTS.
Where does this whole notion of alarmism come from? Are scientists not allowed to mention that one of the possible outcomes of climate change is bigger natural disasters.
Its called Risk Management, you know the thing you do in business, where you list all the possible outcomes and give it a probability and impact rating and if you list something too low and it screws up the business you get fired? Yeah that thing.
As for anthropological effects, that's not what most of the skeptics are saying. Most of the attempts have been to invalidate the science (the earth is cooling, etc), and have thus far been a farce.
There is a strong correlation between global warming and increases in GHG's. Makes a lot of sense when there are at least 6 billion people around the earth contributing to adding the GREENHOUSE gases. What would be stupid is saying that 6 billion people contributing to putting greenhouse gases into the air, will not have any greenhouse effect.
Now we could either wait till its too late, or actually do something about it. I dunno, last time I heard procrastination was a bad thing.
not to mention the stagnation in global temperatures over the past 6 or 7 years
Go create the graph please
|
On February 09 2012 10:11 cLutZ wrote:
Obviously its impossible for me to know if you answered this earlier, but maybe you did.
What events could occur that would "disprove" the AGW theory. Basically, what is the Higgs-Boson test (Standard model goes out the window if they can't find it) for AGW?
In other words, is this even a science, or is it more an art?
Buhler?
|
On February 09 2012 13:21 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 10:11 cLutZ wrote:
Obviously its impossible for me to know if you answered this earlier, but maybe you did.
What events could occur that would "disprove" the AGW theory. Basically, what is the Higgs-Boson test (Standard model goes out the window if they can't find it) for AGW?
In other words, is this even a science, or is it more an art? Buhler?
Right now? I guess if there was factual evidence that showed that increasing emissions was not correlating with global warming.
Someone could also make the point that causation does not equal correlation, but its difficult to prove. Especially when the trend almost fits like a jigsaw puzzle. You'd have to make a pretty damn strong case, in which no one has got even close.
|
On February 09 2012 10:11 cLutZ wrote:
Obviously its impossible for me to know if you answered this earlier, but maybe you did.
What events could occur that would "disprove" the AGW theory. Basically, what is the Higgs-Boson test (Standard model goes out the window if they can't find it) for AGW?
In other words, is this even a science, or is it more an art?
hi clutz, very good (popperish~) question, that we discussed a lot between us new-to-the-field PhD students.
I fear the answer is not so "simple" as with the Higgs Boson test (and I would argue that even if the CERn guys dont find it now in the expected energy range that would not invalidate all the good results the standard model brought forward).
I think the closest thing would be if we see a 20 year / 30 year cooling without external signal (i.e. without strong decrease of solar influence or strong volcanoes), that means if we could identify a 50/60 year internal oscillation of the coupled Earth system that could explain the strong warming in the second half of the 20c without the need of CO2 forcing and would then explain the cooling over the first 30 years of the 21c. We have not seen this type of very lpng multidecadal pattern yet, it could be a problem of the models.
A second thing would be if we can really identify a stronger control of clouds through cosmic rays and if we then could identify a trend in this rays. these are two ifs but still, this would also put up a valid second theory as to what the 20c warming means.
I hope that helps, if it is too unclear, just come back to me,
w
|
On February 09 2012 11:45 slytown wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 11:40 sluggaslamoo wrote:On February 09 2012 11:33 shuurai wrote:
I'm quite certain that in the bubble of your mind, it actually does. Gifted with that kind of impeccable reasoning, have you applied for a job in climate science yet? It doesn't take a genius to create a graph out of raw data. With 39,000 thermometers around the globe, the data cannot and will not lie. It is a trend that even a 10 year old could look at the graph and say, its warming. So please go ahead and make what sceptics claim as "computer models" with so called "complex calculations", which is really just the average temps over X amount of time. And after you have done this, please tell me with a straight face that the earth is cooling or will cool in the next decade. Thanks It's the simplicity you attach to climate models that baffels me, not to mention the emotion u plug into your statements instead of listening to what guys like Roy Spencer say using pure logic. The issue for "deniers" is not the existence of global warming (and I'm saying this for the last time and then I'm done with this thread) but the DEGREE OF ALARMISM SURROUNDING GLOBAL WARMING AND ANTHROPOLOGICAL EFFECTS. As Roy stated in that debate, he does not deny his colleague's theory on CO2 having a warming effect on the earth but he disregards the theory that CO2 has this magical multiplying effect or that warming is something to worry about, not to mention the stagnation in global temperatures over the past 6 or 7 years.
dear slytown
I agree that the degree of alarmism is sometimes not warranted. This is usually the case if 3rd party agents (NGOs) use climate science to follow their own agendas. Sometimes even scientist fall trap to that due to personal motivations. Still, the majority of climate scientists is aware of that danger and tries to be neutral and keep the science separated from politics.
I still think people (as in public) should just take this fact for what it is (facts are distorted in public discourse) and make their mind up on how to act given certain - uncertain - boundary conditions. Just because some people act more alarmist does not invalidate the science behind it (as you acknowledged yourself, the existence and anthropogenic cause for 20c warming is the current-state-of-the-art of science, not its up to the public arena to decide what to do, not up to the scientists).
Best regards
w
|
Well considering people are using tabloid press for "evidence", I guess I will post my own just once.
Something published on the front page of TheAge today.
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/scientist-accepts-cash-for-climate-20120215-1t7ho.html
I am not going to give my own opinion, please form your own opinion. However below I have pointed out some interesting quotes.
Among the documents that Heartland does not claim to be faked, is a budget showing payments to selected scientists
Confidential documents leaked from inside The Heartland Institute, a wealthy think tank based in Chicago and Washington, detail strategy and funding for an array of activities designed to spread doubt about climate change science, paid for by companies that have a financial interest in continuing to release greenhouse gases without government interference.
I lived in NZ for a few years and Bob Carter was a well known member of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, a group whose sole purpose was/is to discredit the notion of human induced climate change. In addition to his work with the Heartland Foundation, Bob Carter was a contributing writer to Tech Central Science Foundation. Tech Central Science Foundation was formed in late November 2002. Exxon Mobil gave the Foundation $95,000 in 2003 for "Climate Change Support."
|
|
|
Ok sure, but sorry I'm not actually sure what the purpose of your post is, is it a response to my post?
When I say tabloid press I really mean anything that is not a science journal or doesn't reference one. TheAge is really a broadsheet newspaper famous for just stating the facts and being fair to both sides of the argument, and that's what people read it for.
Its mainly a hard counter response to this.
On February 05 2012 12:59 Frunkis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 10:47 sluggaslamoo wrote:
Most likely the people that handed in articles to a journal that were "[anti-]AGW", were like one of the guys in my above post. They had no clue about science, were paid by the oil companies to do it and thus in the end weren't able to justify it well enough because they were just plain wrong, or were morons trying to make a name for themselves. And therefore their funding was cut, and they were banned from handing in articles.
Ok, you're clearly confused. Anthropogenic means "human caused" and GW is global warming. While I agree that AGW is bullshit I feel the need to point out that that's YOUR side.
"Paid off by the oil companies" Really? You sound ridiculous. Seriously, get a hold of yourself. You come off like a bit of a nutcase.
I love how he resorts to an ad-hominem attack, because basically I was right.
Exxon Mobil gave the Foundation $95,000 in 2003 for "Climate Change Support."
Bob Carter is getting paid a shit-load of money ($10,000 iirc) every time he produces an article saying the global warming isn't real, and is paid $1600 a month just for attending meetings and spouting bullshit. By companies that have a vested interest in disproving it for their own profits.
Also
One anonymous donor has given a staggering $US8.6 million to the think tank since 2007
Altogether, more than $US20 million had been spent funding and co-ordinating the activities of climate sceptics and bloggers since 2007, the documents suggest
Other cash recipients include Anthony Watts, the leading US climate sceptic blogger, who is to receive $US90,000 for his work this year. Programs slated for funding include new curriculum modules that teach science from a climate-sceptic perspective, to be sent to US schools.6
Seriously where does this kind of money even come from? There are only a few types of organisations that have this kind of free money to burn, and it is certainly not a scientific one.
In case it was a response, my post had nothing to do with the science. I don't really care about the himalayas melting or whatever, its really a red herring. I've already proved that global warming exists, by giving a link to the raw data, I wouldn't even try to refute it when its pure raw data from 40,000 temperature recording stations.
I don't know why people keep trying to refute the science, its so retarded its like trying to disprove gravity. Believing this stuff just proves that you only have half a brain. You would achieve a much better result by at least trying to refute the A in AGW.
Whether this warming is caused by humans is not 100% provable, but there is a clear link, and the temperature increase looks abnormal to say the least. The speculation also makes a tonne of sense, a steep rise, after industry kicks in, everyone has become materialistic with cars/appliances/etc, and 6 billion people are putting green house gases in the air, its obviously going to have a green house effect. There is also the fact that 97% of climate scientists believe that GW is caused by humans.
You can see where it peaks in 1940 and the Earth was supposed to cool back down, but it transitions from a semi-natural cycle to a completely artificial one and kicks back up (I guess then it was industrial revolution 2.0 after the world war). That's my interpretation of it at least, you can make your own, but stats don't lie.
![[image loading]](http://berkeleyearth.org/images/surface-temperature-anomaly-comparison.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://berkeleyearth.org/images/decadal-surface-temperature-anomaly-comparison.jpg)
Source Berkely Earth Insitute, summary graph of the full data set (available for download).
|
It's Big Tobacco all over again.
|
Isnt it weird, that we talk about predictions for decades, when we cant get reliable weather proadcast for more then 5 days. Thats the reality, Climate change is real, if it wasnt real, we still yould have 50 000 ppm (Archean age) co2 in atmosphare. How has humans affected climate? Noone knows (exept for obvious stuff, taking down forest, stoping transpiration, thus destroying water cycle and it turns to desert). Sadly, global warming is one of the smallest threats to mankind, but still geting most attention (compared to turning west into totalitarian countries, lack of recources, massive pollution and waste etc).
|
In the 1970s it was all over the US newspapers "GLOBAL COOLING"
In a few years all the crops would die and in 50 years a new ice age would begin IF the cooling would continue.
A Swedish professor was actually given huge attention because he proposed we should warm the planet burning coal and what not to produce CO2 and fueling the green house effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
What comes to my mind is these words: IF , WOULD , THEN, COULD
Earths temperature have been rising and falling since its creation. People who think the climate should be stable is dilusional, it will get warmer people. Then it will get colder, after that, you guessed it: WARMER :D
Get a grip, there is nothing wrong with the earth its the people that is fucked.
The real problems we face are:
Over-consuming
Poisoning the little sweet water we still have left on the planet.
Chopping down rain forrest, producing deserts
Agriculture watering, depleting water wells for the inhabitants just so a company can make big bucks for 10 years of growing plants in a freaking desert.
|
On February 16 2012 15:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
It's Big Tobacco all over again.
Exactly: Facts does not matter. If you can create enough FUD about the science or argue around it, you are golden!
|
|
|
On February 16 2012 22:04 Knuppe wrote:In the 1970s it was all over the US newspapers "GLOBAL COOLING" In a few years all the crops would die and in 50 years a new ice age would begin IF the cooling would continue. A Swedish professor was actually given huge attention because he proposed we should warm the planet burning coal and what not to produce CO2 and fueling the green house effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_coolingWhat comes to my mind is these words: IF , WOULD , THEN, COULD Earths temperature have been rising and falling since its creation. People who think the climate should be stable is dilusional, it will get warmer people. Then it will get colder, after that, you guessed it: WARMER :D Get a grip, there is nothing wrong with the earth its the people that is fucked. The real problems we face are: Over-consuming Poisoning the little sweet water we still have left on the planet. Chopping down rain forrest, producing deserts Agriculture watering, depleting water wells for the inhabitants just so a company can make big bucks for 10 years of growing plants in a freaking desert.
Interesting. One of the best explainations on the issues of global dimming/cooling is made by a british journalist on his Youtube-channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54?feature=g-all-a#p/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8/0/52KLGqDSAjo
The interesting thing is your real problems:
What is Over-consuming? If consumption was reduced, would it be positive for the climate? The answer is almost always yes!
Poisoning of water is an undeniable problem. It has nothing to do with climate change and it is an acute problem in some places. The technologies for cleaning water are very broad and it is possible to produce water of almost any quality if you are willing to spend the money. This is a practical political problem and not a technological or scientific problem.
Chopping down the rain forrest is actually a huge problem for Climate change. Since the rain forest can hold so much flora and fuana it is a huge CO2 sink. Removing it is releasing more CO2 to the athmosphere.
Desertification has the same problem as chopping down rain forests. Additionally it is happening at a faster rate with higher global temperatures and longer periods of draught which is the effects of climate change!
Agriculture watering is again mostly a question about digging deeper to find water which becomes incredibly expensive and use the technologies to produce the desired water quality. Again it is a political problem and has nothing to do with science. You could argue that acidification of rain depends to some extend on CO2 in the athmosphere and a reduction could lead to less need for cleaning the water.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
