Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > New study into global temperatures      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 51
New study into global temperaturesPage 3 of 15    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
*giggity!*

So there was an independent group of scientists who have looked at the data and come to the conclusion that global warming is REAL!

Interesting little twist on this!!

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/10/21/new-independent-climate-study-confirms-global-warming-is-real/


The big deal is that this was an independent team of researchers who conducted the study (including, interestingly, Saul Perlmutter, who just won the Nobel Prize for co-discovering the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe, and knows a thing or two about data analysis), and whose funding was overwhelmingly donated by the private sector and not from any government. The study was initiated by Berkeley physicist Richard Muller, who was concerned that government researchers weren’t being as open as possible with their methods. He gathered together a team of scientists, and they used data from 39,000 temperature stations around the world, far more than the previous studies. They have put all their data and methodology online for anyone to investigate.

And if you’re wondering who these private groups were, they’re listed on the BEP website. The largest single donor? Why, it’s the Koch brothers, über-conservatives who have pumped millions of dollars into climate change denial. I find that… interesting.


Wonder if the Kochs are going to finally admit they were wrong. Doubt it.
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 52
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/26/2011 10:42:54 PM
I think the issue is that carbon is not the driver behind global Global warming. Something study ignored all together ,at least from what has been released in the above article. Temperture is always changing and always has if you plot it back. There dramatic swings long before this alleged human creation of global warming. It is obvious that the carbon tax is the the real goal of Gore and his ilk.

The sun is the driving force behind global warming
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 53
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/27/2011 12:26:51 AM

Temperture is always changing and always has if you plot it back.

Gosh! What a revelation. Not.
If you knew anything about the issue, or even if you'd paying attention in this thread, you'd know that historical cycles are taken into account.
To quote myself from page 1... What has got everyones attention is the acceleration of the change and the deviation of the rate from expected 'normal', ie; historical, correlators.

The sun is the driving force behind global warming

Once again, this concept has already been debunked. The sun plays a role, but if you're actually interested in the facts you might like to inform yourself what they really are.

In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 54
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/27/2011 5:00:42 AM

The sun is the driving force behind global warming


So you're still wilfully ignoring the fact that, after going through an unusually long and deep solar minimum, we still experienced the warmest year on record in 2009.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html

So no...the sun ISN'T the driving force of global warming.
 Dreamer_in_SC
Joined: 6/13/2011
Msg: 55
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/27/2011 5:52:07 AM
Oh OH OH I know... how about all the space junk and satellites surrounding the planet are acting like an extra insulating blanket layer making sure we are all nice and warm and cozy?

I mean just look at all those little dots. Kinda like a Gold, Silver, and foil quilt wrapped around us...lol

http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/photogallery/beehives/LEO640.jpg

http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/photogallery/beehives/GEO640.jpg
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 56
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/27/2011 6:03:51 AM
Here is an interesting interview, this fellow may know a thing or two, no?


Richard S Lindzen

Atmospheric Physicist
Professor of Meterorology, MIT
Lead Author,
IPCC 3rd Assessment Report

The State of Climate Science
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YcGlHxhckw

The IPCC Fraud
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IMGiNn9hmc&feature=related

Now don't talk to me about the polar bear
Don't talk to me about the ozone layer
Ain't much of anything these days, even the air
They're running out of rhinos - what do I care?
Let's hear it for the dolphin - let's hear it for the trees
Ain't running out of nothing in my deep freeze
It's casual entertaining - we aim to please
At my parties
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 57
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/27/2011 7:44:06 AM
Other than the "concensus of thousands of scientists" claimed by the IPCC being shown to actually be just 4 out of an initial 65 the second link given isnt that interesting.

This one though

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YcGlHxhckw

is very good

The water vapour, seas core temperature oscilations and oceanic multidecade flows along with the cycles of the sun however do seem to be a far more credible explaination for both changes in the climate and variances in severe weather occurences than molecules of Co2 which are at a near negligible amount in the atmosphere really

A self supporting arguement is rarely a valid one, and whether you look at the anit or pro AGW side each is effectively claiming "proof" of its particular stance based on its own findings whereas actual science in any real true form doesnt have that two party political type scenario

I have never seen huge splits on what happens if you mix sodium and hydrogen because that is "actual" science, so there is infact a concencus.

Climatology however isnt, and isnt even at a point where it becoming a science in any true sense of the word is even likely to appear on the far off horizon
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 58
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/27/2011 8:23:58 AM

Here is an interesting interview, this fellow may know a thing or two, no?

Richard S Lindzen
Atmospheric Physicist
Professor of Meterorology, MIT
Lead Author,
IPCC 3rd Assessment Report

As each of your previously debunked objections are debunked yet again, you just move on to the next one rather than argue the facts or try to support your opinion with logic, data, or statistics.

But you're firing blanks.

Lindzen's articles are opinion pieces published in the Wall Street Journal. To ensure balance the Wall Street Journal would need to publish 97 articles saying the opposite to Lindzen for each one of his they publish. That would be three hundred and eighty eight articles to balance his four published since 2006.

If so many other scientists, just as highly qualified, just as credible, just as intelligent, come to the opposite conclusion from the same data... well, it's not looking good for Lindzen. It's not as if he's discovered anything new or startling. He hasn't been able to affect scientific opinion. He hasn't been able convince any large block of climate scientists to abandon the AGW ship.

So.... I'll match your Lindzen, and raise you all 614 of the contributing authors of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, working group 1: the scientific basis. None of whom have expressed scepticism, though one did disagree publicly over the issue of 'hurricane risk'.
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table.html
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 59
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/27/2011 9:46:34 AM
"Debunked" is quite a laughable term really in this context

Its widely acknowledged even by the pro AGW side of the coin that the biggest climate drivers which are the clouds and oceans are barely understood

As such they cant be applied to climate modelling. so you have models based on the least relevant factors, and even then with result orientated assumptions on what level of effect they will have whilst excluding in any realistic way the major climate influences

So what we actually have here is more akin to a muslim saying something to criticise a christians belief, where the christian then claims to "debunk" that by citing an endless procession of things all published by other christians and then claiming that it "proves" theyre wrong

As for the 97%

Hell, collect together ONLY people who support your "religion" and ask them if they think its right and then of course you will get a high percentage who agree with it

Same as if you then ask 1000 of the ones who have the opposite stance what they believe, and again you will have a very high percentage of concensus

But niether of those figures has any validity whatsoever

And if you look at the amount of scientists who have asked that their names were removed from previous IPCC documents and HAVE openly spoken out against it then it would also be pretty much guaranteed that they will cherry pick who they include thereafter to avoid similar embarassment

That isnt even "science" its more akin to politics really, and you'd have to be a total drooling retard once you realise how many people wont stand for misrepresented science to continue picking scientists on expectise rather than on whether or not they share your aims and ideology

But the IPCC itself is plagued with problems

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/scin/geosequestration/report/dissent.pdf

Lists two lead authors of IPCC reports as well as their vice chairman resigning over their agenda based approach and it not being scientific in nature


The amount of dissent and resignations associated with all previous papers from the IPCC doesnt magically vanish because NOW they might finally have figured out how to effectively pick the "right" scientists who have enough of a vested interest in the stance (most probably income based) to not want to vocalise negatively about it

And the more I look into the topic the more it seems like if anything 97% of scientists worldwide NOT agreeing with the claims of the IPCC would be far more likely that a world wide agreement of that amount

Infact only 4 out of 65 lead scientists havent debunked the IPCCs first claim

And 1000s of the reviewers many of whom are extremely reknowned scientists dissassociated themselves from it and the IPCCs claims that were based on it

The claims havent changed at all since the first document was produced. How they choose their scientists though might have it would seem
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 60
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/28/2011 2:11:31 AM

"Debunked" is quite a laughable term really in this context

Not really.
Here is the claim - The sun is the driving force behind global warming.
Here are the facts - "In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

Looks like a debunk to me. What would you call it?


http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/scin/geosequestration/report/dissent.pdf
Lists two lead authors of IPCC reports as well as their vice chairman resigning over their agenda based approach and it not being scientific in nature.

You talk negatively about the IPCC 'cherry picking' its experts then present a report written by four Australian Liberal Party politicians. Contradicting, disagreeing, and denying is party policy.

Certainly, they list climate sceptics but the number they list is dwarfed by the number of just as intelligent, just as well informed, just as highly educated scientists who have also seen the data and who aren't the least bit sceptical.

The rest of your post is just speculation, conjecture, and what appear to be sets of inflated figures plucked out of thin air.
This for instance - "Infact only 4 out of 65 lead scientists havent debunked the IPCCs first claim"
Ignoring that you find the term 'debunked', "laughable in this context", yet use it yourself... I would be interested see the evidence that supports this "4 out of 65" claim. By evidence, I mean other than someone unknown just saying it in YouTube video.
Because, and I'm sure you agree, scepticism is a useful tool for finding out the truth.
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 61
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/28/2011 5:14:55 AM
Oh no "you tube" there is no truth in those huh? Id tend to put more credibility in those above offerings over your inflated ramblings ;)

The evidence against the ipcc fraud is there, it is fact. It is a hemorrhaging political mess for the globalists. You dont really have to look very hard to confirm this. If you do not accept this flawed study you are a climate change denier. You know like a holocaust denier. It is a psychologically charged term to associate it with Holocaust denier. The Zionists use the same kind of tactics when they hide behind the ADL. The globalist use the guise of climate change and save the world to try to justify their proposed carbon tax on the herd. They hide behind this movement in the same way.

Does anyone know anything about the Chicago Climate Exchange CCX? What is that? Looks like that was quite a potential scam until it was exposed. You know, like the IPCC?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3422-secrets-exposed-goldman-sachs-may-be-obamas-enron
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 62
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/28/2011 5:54:50 AM
Remember this story?
Glenn Beck explains Obama, Al Gore, Goldman Sachs, and CCX
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75D_qghz5fw
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 63
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/28/2011 7:07:43 AM

Here is the claim - The sun is the driving force behind global warming.
Here are the facts - "In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions."


Firstly. one of the major climate drivers and yet ANOTHER area of climate that cant be effectively modelled as we barely understand the process is the sea

The seas core temperature is theoried to be directly driven by fluctuations of the suns output, but as with most climate factors theres a lag which if I recall is somewhere between 50 and 100 years

So variances over a decade would actually be irrelevant as they would need to be compared to trends that were in the past by whatever the lag is thought to be

Its also only "proof" if youre claiming that only one thing in an entire climate model has ANY effect on the climate, IE the sun instantly and directly makes an instantaneous change. Which is actually weather rather than climate isnt it?

Where the sun does however fit in is that the sun is thought to be a major driver in the seas core temperature which is still lacking in research or even a basic understanding, the seas own tidal movements and temperature fluctuations are also barely having the surface scratched in understanding is another major climate driver and how the two interact isnt known

But the seas core temperature combined with those multidecadal changes and the suns influence is pretty reasonably thought to be the major influencing factors in the amount of clouds, their types and location

A group of interactions that isnt understood, cant be therefore added to modelling and pretty much makes any climate model a joke

Infact they cant even get climate modelling to effectively work backwards yet which really says it all, because if its supposed to be accepted they can "predict" climate the same models should effectively be able to model changes in climate that have happened in the past yet they fail miserably

As for youtube, its merely a medium. The videos source is pretty irrelevant, but the credentials of the person talking in the video isnt

What they say doesnt miraculously lose merit because its on youtube, and the exact same things have also been published in several papers and in criticisms submitted directly to the IPCC including paragraphs in the chapter he was the lead author for but which were removed prior to release which is the reason he left the IPCC to begin with

Infact most pro AGW videos are ALSO available on youtube too, so by the same "logic" all of those should also be taken as irrelevant and untrue too yes?


As wheeling out pro AGW links as a claimed "debunk" thats actually kind of proving the example I used earlier about two opposing religous beliefs

I am starting to lean towards the real aim here with global warming to not actually be striving for a genuine and science based "concensus" at all, because the people claimed to be "anti AGW" actually stand to make far more money from the arguement continuing which is why when you do infact track the money back you find its the same select group of backers pushing both sides of the arguement

Either way they stand to increase their wealth, and either way the bulk of the population stands to lose out.

So the whole AGW arguement starts to look more like a WWF style facade with a staged good vs evil chirade to maintain interest, but where no matter who wins each particular staged bout, the organisers always win, and the audience is always out of pocket

The more "acurate" stance for both sides is infact the "we dont know, and need to learn more" one. And to then hold off on things like carbon taxes until we DO know, as the science for either side ISNT by any stretch of the imagination "definitive" and the claims by BOTH sides are also far from "scientific" by any stretch of the imagination

But the timeline also presents a problem, because the longer the "doom and gloom" that has already failed to arrive and is now I think been postponed YET AGAIN to an expected 2015 tipping point fails to arrive the more enthusiasm and support the religion of pro AGW will have as well as giving more time for discrepencies and flaws in the claims to become apparent and get into the public domain

Combine that with the very well publicised fact that the suns solar output is set to peak sometime in the next decade and will then start a 1500 year decline also doesnt bear well for the pro AGW doom and gloom brigade as its also not known what effect that might be or how rapidly that reduction in output will occur or even whether it will be in fits and starts rather than a relatively steady decline as mankind hasnt been around long enough to have observed the negative slope of the solar output cycle

So that along with multidecadal oceanic trends, clouds, sea core temperature and many many other areas of the major climate driving mechanisms are unknown quantities and as such arent and infact CANT be built into climate models as a result

Which does make them completely worthless as a predictive tool, and only worthwhile for creating a state of panic over their claimed doom and gloom predictions and a vehicle to introduce new and ever more inventive forms of taxation

Which after all is the sole purpose of the IPCC to begin with, as its a political body, not a scientific one
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 64
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/28/2011 7:41:21 AM
Another interesting trail to follow like the CCX con is this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75D_qghz5fw


Its ludicrous for the pro AGW crowd to still try to claim this has anything to do with the climate, the end of the world or benefitting mankind as a whole

The fact its "youtube" doesnt make it "untrue" remember, and these things being put in place in many cases by the same people who are claimed to be "anti AGW" are at pandemic levels so the whole pro/anti concept becomes null and void

If anything the AGW arguement is more of a distraction and smoke screen to keep people watching the right hand so it cant see whats going on with the left (no political relevance to right and left there btw)

Because whilst people are flapping over the "imminent doom" of a rapidly superheated earth theyre less focussed on the corruption that is set to be irreversible by the time they might notice it due to the financial implications it will thrust into them as a result. But by then it will be too late and the AGW thing will have served its purpose whether it turns out to be purely fact, purely fiction or a combination of the two which is likely to be several decades away before either of those possibilities can be ascertained

But in government castration, global economy terms and peoples welfare thats en eternity with the current rate of financial reposisioning and government driven entrenchment
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 65
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/28/2011 9:56:30 AM
The Koch Industries deniers and their followers are influenced by the money to be made in denial. The oil industries, Kochs and other energy intensive fossil fuel addicts, rely on this army of deniers. I doubt the sincerity and honesty that can come out of such funding. The cherry picking, obfuscationalism, tactics, and lies of the deniers has been well examined and debunked. Hey, $10,ooo just to write a denier letter sounds like a good deal.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm
And you too, can make big bucks from your home, writing denier drivel.
http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/03/another-ad-seeks-writers-to-post-right-wing-comments-unless-its-a-joke/
Long history of astro-turfing.

Denier lies and manipulations explored.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201004060040
Motivation of denial.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/30/989889/-Fossil-fuel-companies-and-Koch-brothers-pour-cash-on-climate-change-skeptic-Willie-Soon-

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=who-funds-contrariness-on

To understand the apparent motivation of perhaps more than a few posters here..
http://climatecrocks.com/2011/01/28/climate-denying-trolls-trained-to-disrupt-internet/
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/10/a-map-of-organized-climate-change-denial/
 Quetico
Joined: 10/24/2011
Msg: 66
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/28/2011 10:43:49 AM
It seems that global warming is a fraud. It seems that the global warming hysteria is instigated by greedy and power-hungry people.

Scientists have received death threats, had their property vandalized and have lost funding because they have exposed the global warming agenda as a fraud. Global warming activists even have killed scientist’s pets and left the dead pets on scientist doorsteps as an implied threat.

John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel says global warming is the greatest scam in history
http://youtu.be/Ft8LfE7AI2w

"Endangered" polar bear population is actually growing ( so popular claims hysteria based on lies)
http://youtu.be/HT6DnjtuZmE

Global Warming Hatemongers, selectively using Corrupt (and he falsified data) to hysterically advance their agenda. Don’t be a sheep for the crooked and greedy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc-1SNZepoU

"ClimateGate" Man-Made Global Warming Climate Scam-Actual Proven Conspiracy
http://youtu.be/DNbxYVa2VjA

There was global warming before there even was an industrial revolution. Do you think man and life would be better off if we were back in the ice age? What do you think would happen to our economy? Don’t you think we would be more likely to go to war if we went back to an Ice Age? Climate change is natural. To try to stop changing climate is madness.

A lot of these activists promote harmful agendas. Like activists that fought against controlled burns and controlled longings; the end result was several decades later we have more dangerous wildfires because there is more undergrowth. More species are endangered, because they were dependent on natural burns. Many of the so-called environmentalists, are in fact hurting the environment.

What about all the taxpayer money that was piled into Obama’s buddies pockets to fund “clean energy” that ended up going bankrupt and not making us anymore energy independent. On the contrary we wasted time and money on pipedreams. The government and activists; often screw up what they get their hands on.

What about the activists that insisted that old schools be tore down and be built with new fire resistant materials. Now we are having to tear down schools because we have found that the “new” fire resistant material asbestos; is endangering the lives of our children and school workers.


Science is not based on a consensus.

The scientific consensus was that the earth was flat.

The scientific consensus was that man could not break the sound barrier.

The scientific consensus was that Earth was the center of the universe.

The consensus might be different; if scientists were allowed to conduct their studies without having their funding cut off or having their lives threatened unless the outcome “proves” global warming.


Remember when the government and activists promoted smoking as “healthy”?
http://youtu.be/gCMzjJjuxQI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFE9jbczsiI
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 67
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/28/2011 10:49:44 AM

Oh no "you tube" there is no truth in those huh? Id tend to put more credibility in those above offerings over your inflated ramblings ;)

Vague ad hominems don't substitute for logical rebuttal.
Besides, your weak attempt at negative characterisation is inaccurate anyway since I haven't been 'rambling' or pushing my opinions. All I've been doing so far is posting links to factual information and giving summaries of what may be found there.
Unlike you.


The evidence against the ipcc fraud is there, it is fact. It is a hemorrhaging political mess for the globalists. You dont really have to look very hard to confirm this.

If it's a fact, and you don't have to look hard to confirm it, one wonders why you don't just reference the links and put an end to the matter. Rather than... you know, like... just rambling.


If you do not accept this flawed study you are a climate change denier. You know like a holocaust denier. It is a psychologically charged term to associate it with Holocaust denier. The Zionists use the same kind of tactics when they hide behind the ADL. The globalist use the guise of climate change and save the world to try to justify their proposed carbon tax on the herd. They hide behind this movement in the same way.

I don't recall that I've negatively characterised anyone in the way you're referring to, not that it's a bad idea, just that I don't recall doing it in this thread. But face it, if you claim the holocaust was a hoax then you are a 'denier'.
The bottom line is, in judging whether the term 'denier' is fairly applied, you have to prove something really is a myth before you can legitimately object to being labeled a 'denier'.
So... boo hoo.

Scepticism is fine, I recommend it, but denial of the obvious is irrational. Too many 'sceptics' are only sceptical about one side of the climate change argument, they rail against the IPCC and its 'flawed science' then enthusiastically produce... YouTube links to support their position.
Duh. YouTube isn't peer reviewed. Any fool can post whatever they like.

It's strange that that concept seems to evade the notice of many climate change sceptics, like... demanding scientific rigour on the climate change side, but then, without noticing the incongruity, unquestioningly referencing YouTube.
Your opening sentence, quoted at the top of this post, is an example of what I'm talking about, as is the post above this one.


Does anyone know anything about the Chicago Climate Exchange CCX? What is that? Looks like that was quite a potential scam until it was exposed. You know, like the IPCC?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3422-secrets-exposed-goldman-sachs-may-be-obamas-enron

I don't know anything about the Chicago Climate Exchange, not being American n'all. But what do alleged commercial scams have to do with rising sea levels, you know... the reality of climate change?
Nothing.

But thankfully Glenn Beck seems to have saved everyone from being fooled by those wicked distorters of truth hey?

Remember this story?
Glenn Beck explains Obama, Al Gore, Goldman Sachs, and CCX
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75D_qghz5fw

No, but I remember this one.
John Stewart explains Glenn Beck...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6axGaffklU
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 68
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/28/2011 11:14:36 AM

If you build a model what you do is take what you know and have observed [the past and the present]to then predict the future.


Yup, which is kind of the problem

We actually "know" very little about how climate works, and we have only in any detail "observed" a few hundred years of weather patterns and far less when more specific aspects of our climate and atmosphere are included

The main climate drivers and their influences are still pretty much a mystery including oceanic patterns, clouds, solar cycling and its effects, both positive and negative drivers (as so many parts of the puzzle arent understood to begin with)

And so you have a "model" thats "incomplete" to say the least

So the initial tests were to make the model go back further than observations and data existed to see if it created the trends that we know existed historically

Which they didnt, they failed miserably in modelling either the mini cold perid we had as well as the warm spell in the middle ages and failed just as effectively when earlier periods in history were attempted to be modelled


Basically even pro AGW organisations admit that clouds and multidecadal oceanic patterns are two of the most impactive climate drivers, as well as admitting they have little to no idea about how they really work, what interelationship they have and what ability to negatively or positively drive climate they have

And without that the concept of "modelling" does become totally worthless when the major drivers in an ecosystem arent understood and therefore cant be included in a model to begin with

Which brings me back to my earlier comment, that UNTIL all of those things are infact KNOWN and understood then the only fair statement from either side of the arguement would be to simply admit

"We dont know,,,,yet"

And until they DO know trying to inspire widespread panic or deeply impactive and negative legislation is just ridiculous

Especially when the scientific community itself is still heavily split on the validity of the science and openly admits how many of the major aspects of the climate remain almost totally unknown and yet to be understood
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 69
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/28/2011 1:24:15 PM
No, but I remember this one.
John Stewart explains Glenn Beck...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6axGaffklU

I agree he is a shill. That particular story checks out though if you look into it.

LOL here is a good one

CNN Glenn Beck denounce Americans and Ron Paul supporters as terrorists
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k04fjXFIG10&feature=related

Congressman Ron Paul Schools Bernanke on the Bailout Plan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv6rQ0U01Yc

Ron Paul Grills Ben Bernanke Again (April 2, 2008)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viEwZItCXdc&feature=related

It is the failing world economy that the global warming/ climate control issue is coupled to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2fjxaRLpQo&feature=related



Vague ad hominems don't substitute for logical rebuttal.
Besides, your weak attempt at negative characterisation is inaccurate anyway since I haven't been 'rambling' or pushing my opinions. All I've been doing so far is posting links to factual information and giving summaries of what may be found there.
Unlike you.


LOL...... Actually on review of your posts, most of your responses seem to be an exercise in perversion.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 70
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/28/2011 7:05:48 PM

LOL...... Actually on review of your posts, most of your responses seem to be an exercise in perversion.

What, no point by point illustration of the fallacies I've perpetuated? No specific rebuttal? hahahaa
But why would ya huh? When you can instead just post a dishonest, all encompassing slur and thereby provide another demonstration of intellectual laziness.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 72
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/29/2011 6:59:32 PM

That is one of the funniest things i have ever read. It went back further than observation to see if it matched history. Doe sthis obvious contradiction need explaining to you ? How can we know history about climate without data ? Your ability to contradict your own argument is phenomenal. Very funny


Glad you find it funny, but that is infact what they did

We only have a couple of hundred years worth of temperature data for large parts of the world, so to test the reliability they drove the models back past that point expecting them to be able to recreate the historical records for warm and hot periods they knew about (which a working model would be able to do)

The rationale being that if it worked reliably going backwards in time, then it "should" work just as reliably going forwards and actually predicting future trends

But I guess as with most of the other things where all you do is scream "link link" you already know that anyway as it was part of the initial testing criteria for climate models to test their validity and acuracy


You are back to claiming a lack of consenus again despite the evidence of the study you criticised but did not read


Did the "scientific community" collectively write the report? No
Did the "scientific community" collectively put their name to it? No

I specifically said "the scientific community, which isnt JUST made up of the people making a living out the IPCC and similar organisations but also includes the anti AGW scientists too, who I am pretty sure most of whom niether contributed to nor stated any "concensus" youre going on about

So its not a "concensus" of the scientific community, its a "concensus" of a very tiny portion of said community, which isnt the same thing

Why keep ignoring whats actually being said and responding to what hasnt been said?

Unless youre claiming that either theres only about 600 scientists in the entire world with any overlap into any of the areas of climate, or that from ALL the scientists in the entire world with any overlap into any area of climate theres a proven "concencus" then again your flapping about something you claim exists but which clearly doesnt, and that you cant prove does exist

Without looking very hard at all you could quite easily find a few thousand scientists, many of whom are just as much a climate specialists as the IPCC ones who quite openly and vocally reckon the IPCC and its claims are a total crock

So thats far from being a "concensus" by any stretch of the imagination

So why do you keep claiming it exists?
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 73
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/29/2011 8:51:22 PM
Yeah, with only 97-98% of scientists who actually work in the field of climate research, are published and peer reviewed, it could be easy to say that consensus has been blocked by scientists employed by the petroleum industry with fewer creditials and in unrelated fields.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/scientists-overwhelmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1

There is a thing called the precautionary principle or or precautionary approach that states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

We know that in every other measure of human impact on the planet, that we indeed are wiping out biodiversity, depleting soils, deforesting the planet, drying up aquifers, polluting the commons, including the ocean, acid rain, distribution of mercury globally, acidified oceans, etc..etc... To somehow draw the line on human impacts somehow being incapable of impacting our extraordinarily thin layer of life supporting atmosphere does not fly in the actual scientific community.

What is the worse thing that will happen if we transition away from reliance on finite, dirty stored carbon deposits and nuclear waste and distribution? Cleaner air, lives saved, the capacity to feed ourselves sustainably, drinkable water, living oceans, etc. would all benefit from the precautionary principle. If indeed we did find out at some point in the distant future that human activity is so puny as to be negligible, the fossil fuels will still be there for a brief period of use.

The denier alarmists would have us believe that great sacrifices will have to be made to transition to sustainable lifestyles, when in fact the opposite involves greater and greater sacrifices as we keep all our eggs in the finite fuels basket and ignore the situation until it is too late and we have squandered remaining fossil resources on cheap plastic crap and electronic gimmicks.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 74
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/29/2011 9:39:57 PM

You are back to claiming a lack of consenus again despite the evidence of the study you criticised but did not read


Did the "scientific community" collectively write the report? No
Did the "scientific community" collectively put their name to it? No

I specifically said "the scientific community, which isnt JUST made up of the people making a living out the IPCC and similar organisations but also includes the anti AGW scientists too, who I am pretty sure most of whom niether contributed to nor stated any "concensus" youre going on about

So its not a "concensus" of the scientific community, its a "concensus" of a very tiny portion of said community, which isnt the same thing.

That ^^^ isn't true.
Consensus is not the same thing as unanimity.
Consensus on AGW, amongst 'scientists' of all disciplines, is a fact.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

"An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate to its current non-committal position. Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change



If you are confused as to whose opinion matters, just pay attention to the peer review science journals and the (various) National Academies of Sciences.
(This) is a list of joint statements calling for action on mitigating climate change. The National Academies representing the 21 following countries and districts have signed joint statements:
Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Caribbean
Canada
China
France
Germany
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Malaysia
Mexico
New Zealand
Russia
South Africa
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm

The various statements by each of the above National Academies ^^^ are quoted on the site.
Additional sources regarding various national academies and science bodies can be found here -
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

Note the term 'National Academy' doesn't necessarily refer to groups of climate scientists.


Without looking very hard at all you could quite easily find a few thousand scientists, many of whom are just as much a climate specialists as the IPCC ones who quite openly and vocally reckon the IPCC and its claims are a total crock

So thats far from being a "concensus" by any stretch of the imagination

So why do you keep claiming it exists?

Presumably because it does. Use of the word 'consensus' is valid to indicate general or widespread agreement.

Your use of the phrase "Without looking very hard at all you could quite easily find..." is interesting. Because 'without looking very hard at all you could quite easily find ' there is a consensus on AGW amongst scientists of all disciplines, yet rather than actually looking you just trot out previously discredited objections and comprehensively debunked arguments.
All that does is diminish your own credibility, since 'without looking very hard at all it's easy to find' evidence that contradicts your assertion.

As for your claim that "you could quite easily find a few thousand scientists" to dispute the IPCC position...
Apart from the fact that "a few thousand" is an insignificant number compared to the numbers who support and endorse the IPCC (as shown above in the quotes from Wiki et.al), have you considered this -

The fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists (not the famous ones, the ones at your local university or federal lab). I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist.
Gavin Schmidt
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/gschmidt/
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/people/features/schmidt-cc-award.html


Factual accuracy is a cornerstone of scientific enquiry, and genuine scepticism should rest on the same foundation. Yet all too often those that claim 'scepticism' as their motivation are found to be just ignoring facts and trying to distort reality to fit their prejudice.
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 75
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/30/2011 1:26:36 AM
I'm a climate change (carbon related) denier *fart*.. tax that Gore !! Good bye all thanks for the chat!!!
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > New study into global temperatures