Originally posted by VailSkibum
-
when did i say it was?"because every vengeful cop with a lesbian daughter, is having a bad day, and looking for someone to blame" -
I bet you are.....Originally posted by cockerpunk
Comment
-
that post really cleared up the fundamental and false assumption your post was based on - well done!Originally posted by dahoebI bet you are....."because every vengeful cop with a lesbian daughter, is having a bad day, and looking for someone to blame"Comment
-
haha you never disappointOriginally posted by cockerpunk
Comment
-
So if you agree concensus is not fact, then you also agree that it's possible man is not responsible for climate change?Originally posted by cockerpunk
A side note... what happens when we all have to drive hydrogen cars? Isn't water vapor only emmison? Isn't water vapor the worst greenhouse gas?Comment
-
Sorry I have not posted sooner, but I have been Burning fossil fuels at the lake all week, before I have to start water skiing behind a sailboat.Originally posted by cockerpunk
I do not have a link to a paper but I do have the famous hockey stick graph of Mann's as seen in this link that I have posted before, that removed the MWP.
Also if you would look at the work being done by Roy Spencer. His work on clouds being a negative feedback that climate models don't take into account.
Doctor Roger Pielke Sr. would also be another one to read up on if you actually believe there is a consensus on global warming.
Also for some peer reviewed material on lack of warming.
I questioned you before about climate science being a new science and you threw out computer science as being a science that has "revolutionized our lives" That doesn't mean that climate science has been around long enough to understand what is going on in the climate. You seem to put a lot of faith in the models. You keep referring to them almost in every post in this thread. If you read the above paper you will see that the models have not been able to account for the lack of warming. I think it was Treberth that said "it's a travesty". The models are flawed since they can not hind cast as I have said before.
So if you throw out the models, take into account: UHI, Poor weather station placement (1 example of hundreds for you http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/2...omon-islands/), land usage changes, adjustments to surface data, what would you end up with? Probably no warming, but it's hard to get government funding with a finding like that.Comment
-
i really encourage you to read the papers themselves and the linked documents, and even google the authors and documents to get get eh full versions. the headlines are hardly accurate.Originally posted by blake20Sorry I have not posted sooner, but I have been Burning fossil fuels at the lake all week, before I have to start water skiing behind a sailboat.
its alright, i totally forgot about this thread
I do not have a link to a paper but I do have the famous hockey stick graph of Mann's as seen in this link that I have posted before, that removed the MWP.
that link is talking about the flaws in gores graph, which are obvious and openly admitted by climiate change proponets. gore is not a climate scientist. he is a politician.
Also if you would look at the work being done by Roy Spencer. His work on clouds being a negative feedback that climate models don't take into account.
ah! now we are onto something. qualified skeptics! spencer and spencmarks work is indeed interesting. the main problem that has been highlighted in the literature with there work is that they based there model on indoneasian seas, which are the warmest on earth. other scientists have performed the same analysis on more typical areas, and found that isn't the case. there claim is that cloud cover reflects more sunlight, and hotter temps lead to more clouds, and thus cools the earth.
the other interesting thing abotu clouds is that while they do reflect sunlight, they also insulate the earth. when all aircraft were gounded after 9/11, we got to see exactly what effect pure naturally seeded clouds had on the nations temprature. the data showed a slight warming trend, if nothign at all.
so the hypothesis is not well supported, and seems only true when the ocean below is the warmest on earth. typical areas do not exhibit the cooling trend. another problem is that neat naturally flows from warm to cold, and thus another possible explaination is that the warm air/water is simply transfering out of the system according to natural theromdynamic processes, and it my not be the cloud effects.
Doctor Roger Pielke Sr. would also be another one to read up on if you actually believe there is a consensus on global warming.
this is an interesting link, and i am very familar with Pielke's work. many of his articles are great work insureing honastly in the porcess. however, many of this articles are not correct, and have incorrect headlines/conclusions based on the documents cited. one such example is here -
the reason of course that no one claims that global warming has stopped since 2003 is very easy, and very scientific. its a matter of statisical significance. the stablity in the 2003-2008 periode is not statistically significant. i mean looke at the graph he publishes - if that steay part is really statisically signifcant, then the 1980-1984 massive cooling should be significant and disprove climate change should it not? however, if we look at the graph as whole, we see that massive longer and more sustained cooling back then is not statisitically significant in the upward trend. more on this later
Also for some peer reviewed material on lack of warming.
this link is interesting becuase it acutally contradicts the graph produced in that last link i posted. that graph shows a very significant warming trend in that period ... so which is it? lets look at the paper rather then the headline and see -
first we note it was coauthored by micheal mann, who was quoted in the so called "climategate" emails, and produced the much famed hockey stick graph. he is a well known proponet of climate change ... so what is he doing writing a paper saying it isn't so?
he isn't.
if you actually read the paper, they are disucssing the effects of coal and sulfer on the radative properties on earth. they are noting that while co2 and other gases skyrocketed in the last 30 years, sulfer and coal use has only increased a bit more then 25%. this leads to an increase in radiative forcing, which combined with the decline in the 11 year solar cycle leads to a slight flattening of the rise in global temprature.
this is why we dont see a flat line from 1998 to 2008 on the priviously linked graph, because the tremprature still increased.
this is a great opprotunity to look into the headlines and read the paper for yourself. it was a very interesting paper dealing with forcing, insolation, and the solar cycle. i encourage you to read it, it is much different then the headline would lead you to suspect.
I questioned you before about climate science being a new science and you threw out computer science as being a science that has "revolutionized our lives" That doesn't mean that climate science has been around long enough to understand what is going on in the climate. You seem to put a lot of faith in the models. You keep referring to them almost in every post in this thread. If you read the above paper you will see that the models have not been able to account for the lack of warming. I think it was Treberth that said "it's a travesty". The models are flawed since they can not hind cast as I have said before.
i think you need to read the paper you just linked, becuase it deals very will the models and how they explain the climate. because again, if you read, they do hintcast very effectivly. try reading the paper you link to
So if you throw out the models, take into account: UHI, Poor weather station placement (1 example of hundreds for you http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/2...omon-islands/), land usage changes, adjustments to surface data, what would you end up with? Probably no warming, but it's hard to get government funding with a finding like that.
i again suggest you read your own link
in that paper, he is complaining that the models are too stable, and "If anything, the models are underestimating change, compared with the geological record. "
this is not a good thing for a climate change denier. this would suggest that the changes predicted by the IPCCs model are not dramatic enough, that we will see more warming faster bascially.
this makes sense though, any kind of mathmatical model will tend to be a low pass filter, rather a high pass filter. as we see on most of these graphs, you cannot take point to point year by year information as the true trend, the singnal is too varried, and thus you have to apply a low pass filter most often averaging temp based on a moving average. the models cannot possibly predict every month of year year, and every year of every decades average temp, there is to much noise in the singanal.
your final claim is totally unsupported by the link post. you claim "probably no warming" and yet the paper you link to says that temp changes will be much larger then the IPCC's model predicts.Last edited by cockerpunk; 07-06-2011, 11:30 AM."because every vengeful cop with a lesbian daughter, is having a bad day, and looking for someone to blame"Comment
-
sure its possible. certainly not probably given what we know, but its possible. nothing in science is certain (only truths are mathmatical truths), as more evidence and data is collected and presented, science changes.Originally posted by VailSkibum
water vapor is far from the worst greenhouse gas."because every vengeful cop with a lesbian daughter, is having a bad day, and looking for someone to blame"Comment
-
Ok Cocker, new questions for you.
What SHOULD the amount of CO2 be in our atmosphere? (Currently it's 390ppm) 270 ppm? 150 ppm? or maybe 0ppm?Comment
-
Ok I hate to double post, but here is a little video for you to watch.
Also you keep talking about how the earth has warmed. What dataset are you using The CRU?? Or are you using the UAH global temp that measures the lower troposphere?
If your using the CRU, Here is a little info on that.
Money quote:
"In Parliament's enquiries into the Climategate Affair, Graham Stringer MP was surprised to learn that the CRU team couldn't produce the same result twice.
"When I asked Oxburgh if [Keith] Briffa [CRU academic] could reproduce his own results, he said in lots of cases he couldn't," Stringer told us. "That just isn't science. It's literature. If somebody can't reproduce their own results, and nobody else can, then what is that work doing in the scientific journals?""
Now if your using the UAH temps, and CO2 has been increasing shouldn't the data there show a huge warming trend with no downturns? Now if you look at the years, 2002-2007 they show no warming at all, while CO2 output increased during the same period. How is that possible if CO2 is the driving force in the climate? (per warmers)
Here is the graph.
Last edited by blake20; 07-07-2011, 02:15 PM.Comment
-
do you really want me to go line per line through this debunking it?Originally posted by blake20
1. the only poeple looking for the good-old-days of simplicity is the right wing, not the left. they are the grand-old-party and talk of a bygone age where all poeple were good, god fearing folk and we all had 1 boy and 1 girl and there was never divorce, premarital sex ... blah.
2. he attempts to use the corilation does not mean cuasation argument (a frequent denier argument) however, this argument neglects the littearlly hundreds of years of reasearch we have done that PROVES that co2 will warm the earth. heck, it was orginially hypothesised in the 1870s! this is becuase poeple have be researching the radation absorbtion effects of co2 for over 150 years!
the most compelling research by guy stewert chanender
3. then he goes on to say that scientists have not ruled out other cuases ... which is rediculous. not only have they been ruled out, they are well known and understood - which is the reason why they can be ruled out.
4. he notes that before lots of research of done of global warming, the data showed that natural periods of warming and cooling existed and were the rule. he is correct. however, he is incorret when you put this point with the privous point - we have essentally ruled out natural causation for the current warming.
5. he brings up the mid-evil warming period (another commong denier argument) ... which is well known and understood by proponets ... its even explained by current climate models!
6. he then claims that there are large climate forces which are not well understood. this is just silly.
7. he then states "and while it is true that climate science has ruled out the most obvious natural cuases of climate change like sunlight intensity, or ozone diplition, ......." which is correct. however, the second bit he goes into is false - "we have no sufficantly detailed knoweldge of indirect natural cuases"
this is silly becuase we do indeed have sufficantly detailed knoweldge of indirect natural cuases - that would be the positive feedback system of methan that we have VERY detailed information about. we have the data, we have the icecores, the tree rings, the sunspot counts, to detail very well the positive feedback system in earth temprature. i discuessed this earlier, where essentailly a small amount of warming will produce a lot of warming, and a small amount of cooling will produce a lot of cooling. this goes back to his earier errors about natural causes not beign understood, they are, and thats why they have been rejected, and why we think there is a positive feedback system.
8. he then suggests that the warming could be because of a reduction in cloud cover (which happens to be the exact opposite argument that was already put out by the research you quoted earlier). this hypothesis was rejected because clouds do both, they reflect more sunlight (spencer), AND they insulate the earth (privous argument).
well they can't do both can they?
well they do. in the daytime the clouds tend to keep things cool by reflecting sunlight. at night however, they tend to inslate the earth and prevent cooling.
so then the question becomes: is one stronger then the other?
the answer was found in a study done after 9/11 that i have already alluded to, when aircraft were grounded for a week, we were able to study pure natural clouds and there effect on temprature. and what they found was that there was no large difference, but that if there was an effect, it was a slight cooling effect.
9. he says "if it does turn out that most warming in the past was of natural orgin" which of coruse it was ... this was before humans industrialized ... so his next argumet that it doesn't make sense that the current warming is due to humans is simply ignoring the obvious answer.
10. he then says that we have a robust, insensative climate system. which is rediculous, as he has already made the opposite point eariler! we don't, the earth has a well know and understood positive feedback mechanism by which a small trigger in cooling will cause alot of cooling, and small trigger of warming will cause a lot of warming.
and im gonna stop there, im 4 minutes in and the guy has no idea what he is talking about, what we do and do not know, and why we think that."because every vengeful cop with a lesbian daughter, is having a bad day, and looking for someone to blame"Comment
-
i get the distinct impression your not even reading most of my posts. all i am doing is repeating the same things over and over again. we know its not the sun, we know its not clouds, we know about the midevil warmign period, we know that co2 has been higher and temps lower, we know .... BLAHOriginally posted by blake20Ok I hate to double post, but here is a little video for you to watch.
Also you keep talking about how the earth has warmed. What dataset are you using The CRU?? Or are you using the UAH global temp that measures the lower troposphere?
If your using the CRU, Here is a little info on that.
if you don't think there has been any warming, then you should take a look at your own skeptics published graphs. all of there graphs produce the same thing ...
Money quote:
"In Parliament's enquiries into the Climategate Affair, Graham Stringer MP was surprised to learn that the CRU team couldn't produce the same result twice.
"When I asked Oxburgh if [Keith] Briffa [CRU academic] could reproduce his own results, he said in lots of cases he couldn't," Stringer told us. "That just isn't science. It's literature. If somebody can't reproduce their own results, and nobody else can, then what is that work doing in the scientific journals?""
Now if your using the UAH temps, and CO2 has been increasing shouldn't the data there show a huge warming trend with no downturns? Now if you look at the years, 2002-2007 they show no warming at all, while CO2 output increased during the same period. How is that possible if CO2 is the driving force in the climate? (per warmers)
Here is the graph.
do you even read my posts? i delt with this point eariler. temprature signals are to varried, they must be filtered to establish the trend. there is elnino la nina, 11 year solar cycle ... and many other signals that are buired in there noise we see. co2 is not the sole driver of climate, no one ever claimed that. there will be years where co2 goes up, and tempreature goes down, because there are many many many other factors included. this is why one must filter and smooth the data out.
i brought up the 1980-1984 COOLING effect, whereby co2 went up, and yet temprature went down, and yet this does not in any way conflict with teh global warming model.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/0...onth-to-0-31c/"because every vengeful cop with a lesbian daughter, is having a bad day, and looking for someone to blame"Comment
-
Originally posted by cockerpunk
Maybe you and I are not reading the same links. I have read the papers themselves and I seem to come up with the same conclusion as the authors.
As for it being Gore's graph. That is false it's Mann's graph that the IPCC has also used, that was proved to be inacurate.
As for Spencer being wrong on Clouds. You yourself said it only works above Warm oceans. So if the world is heating up the Oceans should heat also so then more clouds. So that would be a negative feed back. Another thing that the climate models do not take into account.
As for your quote:
if you actually read the paper, they are disucssing the effects of coal and sulfer on the radative properties on earth. they are noting that while co2 and other gases skyrocketed in the last 30 years, sulfer and coal use has only increased a bit more then 25%. this leads to an increase in radiative forcing, which combined with the decline in the 11 year solar cycle leads to a slight flattening of the rise in global temprature.
According to all the Warmers the Sun has nothing to do with our climate!! Plus the fact that Mann's work has already been discredited due to poor data.
I hate to say but all your "peer reveiw" material does show how corrupt the peer review process is when it comes to "climate science" It's almost to the point that it should no longer be called a science.Comment
-
there is no should. that would be like there is some intent or design. there is only what IS, what HAS BEEN, and what WILL BE.Originally posted by blake20
there is no "should""because every vengeful cop with a lesbian daughter, is having a bad day, and looking for someone to blame"Comment
-
Originally posted by blake20Maybe you and I are not reading the same links. I have read the papers themselves and I seem to come up with the same conclusion as the authors.
that doesn't make much sense because the authors in all those papers so far quoted, agree with antroprogenic climate change ....
As for it being Gore's graph. That is false it's Mann's graph that the IPCC has also used, that was proved to be inacurate.
all graphs are innaccurate, liek all models are flawed. the question is is it accurate enough to draw a conlcusion, and yes, yes it is.
also, if you agreed with the authors of these papers, then you'd agree with Mann, cause he is the author of several of the quoted papers .... so now your just not making any sense.
As for Spencer being wrong on Clouds. You yourself said it only works above Warm oceans. So if the world is heating up the Oceans should heat also so then more clouds. So that would be a negative feed back. Another thing that the climate models do not take into account.
acutally they do. and i don;t think your finnished reading what i was saying there. you saw "holy **** he said it worked" and then extrapolated to to mean something. the same analysis has been done to many other parts of the world showing that is doesn't work.
As for your quote:
if you actually read the paper, they are disucssing the effects of coal and sulfer on the radative properties on earth. they are noting that while co2 and other gases skyrocketed in the last 30 years, sulfer and coal use has only increased a bit more then 25%. this leads to an increase in radiative forcing, which combined with the decline in the 11 year solar cycle leads to a slight flattening of the rise in global temprature.
According to all the Warmers the Sun has nothing to do with our climate!! Plus the fact that Mann's work has already been discredited due to poor data.
the sun has a lot to do with our climate, just not with the current warming trend. no serous climate proponet says the sun has nothing to do with climate, jsut that the sun isn't right now, because we MEASURED IT.
I hate to say but all your "peer reveiw" material does show how corrupt the peer review process is when it comes to "climate science" It's almost to the point that it should no longer be called a science
theres your tinfoil hat getting in the way again. those two scientists calling the data skewed work on soil samples and core samples. egro, there criticisms of tropspherical satalite data is really not news.
.
^^^^^"because every vengeful cop with a lesbian daughter, is having a bad day, and looking for someone to blame"Comment
Comment