Global Warming,eh?

[blake20]

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 .... BLAH

No I'm just trying to figure out how you can rule out all the variables when you don't even know what all of them even are.
As Donald Rumsfeld would say

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

To say that for sure that CO2 is the reason the planet is warming, and humans are the only cause is pretty darn arrogant when there are so many unknowns don't you think??

I also feel as though I am also repeating myself.

[cockerpunk]

No I'm just trying to figure out how you can rule out all the variables when you don't even know what all of them even are.
As Donald Rumsfeld would say

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

To say that for sure that CO2 is the reason the planet is warming, and humans are the only cause is pretty darn arrogant when there are so many unknowns don't you think??

I also feel as though I am also repeating myself.

we do know what they are, thats why we can toss them out. also, we have been meauring them, so we know a lot about them, and thats how we built the models that we are using to make predicitions (becuase they match privous data).

[Ando]

I also feel as though I am also repeating myself.

Cockerpunk will do that to you...

[blake20]

we do know what they are, thats why we can toss them out. also, we have been meauring them, so we know a lot about them, and thats how we built the models that we are using to make predicitions (becuase they match privous data).

To say that Mann was contradicting his own work maybe you should check and see. It is a Different Mike Mann (Michael L. Mann not Michael E. Mann of Hockey team fame)

As for models being correct let's look and see

Ipcc says in 1990 over .6 degree rise in temp from 1990 to 2007. What do the actual temps show?? No where near that much warming. So how is it that the models are correct??

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008...etti-diagrams/ (graph is mid way down the page)

As for my Tin foil hat being on. I find it very peculiar when Mike Mann's, of the hockey stick, papers all pass Peer review of climate scientists, then fall apart when Steve McIntyre, a Mining Engineer from Canada, goes through the data and finds it faulty. Not only with the hockey stick graph, but with his last paper, that also passed peer review. For me this sends up a red flag when dealing with climate scientists.

When the Boys at the CRU can't reproduce their work, and no one else can when it comes to surface temperature records then that also sends up a red flag in my book. As I linked before. If you can't reproduce your work it's not science, wouldn't you agree? So we have the boys at the CRU who can't get their data correct an NOAA uses that data for everything that they do. So what does that tell you? Garbage in Garbage out. Even NOAA people are questioning the surface temperature records.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/discussion-of-temperature-instrumentation-on-long-term-temperature-trends/

If you look at some of the surface station work that Watts and Pielke have done you would see that the surface station data has been corrupted by poor placement and by adjustments to the raw data by the climate scientists who are on the global warming payroll.

Also when you graph temp and CO2 you find that Temp drives CO2 not the other way arround

http://cyclesresearchinstitute.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/which-causes-which-out-of-atmospheric-temperature-and-co2-content/

[VailSkibum]

Time Magazine 1974

From Time Mag in 1974. Blaming motor vehicles for global cooling.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H. L. Mencken (not Algore)

[cockerpunk]

From Time Mag in 1974. Blaming motor vehicles for global cooling.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H. L. Mencken (not Algore)

time magazine is not a scientific journal.

also, in the 1970s far more papers were written endorsing warming vs cooling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvMmPtEt8dc&playnext=1&list=PLA4F0994AFB057BB8

[cockerpunk]

To say that Mann was contradicting his own work maybe you should check and see. It is a Different Mike Mann (Michael L. Mann not Michael E. Mann of Hockey team fame)

As for models being correct let's look and see

Ipcc says in 1990 over .6 degree rise in temp from 1990 to 2007. What do the actual temps show?? No where near that much warming. So how is it that the models are correct??

this applies all across the temprature graphs, you can always and will always find local indecrepenies becuase of the always changing weather. the important part is the long term trends. i have pointed this out now explictly 6 times in this thread and you fail to understand the simple point. look at your own graphs ... you can make line segments that show massive cooling for 3-6 years at least 3 times, and you can find 3-6 years of stangent temps at least 4 times ... but none of that effects the overall trend ...

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008...etti-diagrams/ (graph is mid way down the page)

As for my Tin foil hat being on. I find it very peculiar when Mike Mann's, of the hockey stick, papers all pass Peer review of climate scientists, then fall apart when Steve McIntyre, a Mining Engineer from Canada, goes through the data and finds it faulty. Not only with the hockey stick graph, but with his last paper, that also passed peer review. For me this sends up a red flag when dealing with climate scientists.

steve did not submitt to peer reviewed document, so without going through and doing the calculations myself (like what is done in peer review) its impossible to say if he did them right. and when the US acedmy of sciences read his work, they essentially laughed it out the door, because the statistical flaws that Mann commited, didn't effect the overall shape of the graph. this is just essentially accurate and effective peer review.

When the Boys at the CRU can't reproduce their work, and no one else can when it comes to surface temperature records then that also sends up a red flag in my book. As I linked before. If you can't reproduce your work it's not science, wouldn't you agree? So we have the boys at the CRU who can't get their data correct an NOAA uses that data for everything that they do. So what does that tell you? Garbage in Garbage out. Even NOAA people are questioning the surface temperature records.

this is just another internet rumor mill myth, base again on a lack of understand exactly what a trend is. evenin a statistically cold year, record high local temps can recorded, and vice versa. we are talking about trends here, not local mins and maxes. this is exact same argument as the "oh we got a foot of snow in october, global wamring is such a joke ... hahah" argument. it merely betrays that the topics being disucessed (statistical trends) is beyond those disucssing it.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/discussion-of-temperature-instrumentation-on-long-term-temperature-trends/

If you look at some of the surface station work that Watts and Pielke have done you would see that the surface station data has been corrupted by poor placement and by adjustments to the raw data by the climate scientists who are on the global warming payroll.

Also when you graph temp and CO2 you find that Temp drives CO2 not the other way arround

http://cyclesresearchinstitute.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/which-causes-which-out-of-atmospheric-temperature-and-co2-content/

indeed, for the vast majoirty of the earth existence, co2 has been a lagging indicator. this is the 800 year lead time we privously discussed. this is because of the positive feedback system of carbon gases.

however, this does not disprove that carbon gases play a HUGE role, in fact, it reniforces that notion.

and since before the industrial revolution, co2 was governed by nature, not man made actions, this makes perfect sense that it would be a lagging indicator.

but, since now co2 is mostly driven by human actions, then it makes perfect sense that enough human useage of co2 would then lead to an increase in temprature.

kinda cool eh?

^^^^

database died for a while, back though

[VailSkibum]

time magazine is not a scientific journal.

also, in the 1970s far more papers were written endorsing warming vs cooling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvMmP...F0994AFB057BB8

YouTube isn't a scientific journal either, so I didn't waste time watching that vid. Were you not the one disparaging the internet rumor mill? Or, are you the One with the OneTrue Internet connection?

And lest you forget, I LIVED THROUGH THE NEW ICE AGE SCARE AND REMEMBER IT WELL! Heard it in science class for a looong time. Check my birthdate. They said that the emissions from cars and industry was blocking the sun's rays; causing the cooling. That didn't sell so well; so I believe that this is just a new way to fleece more $$ out of the USA taxpayer for the UN, it's cronies, and progressive politicians that want to control everything. Throw some up against the wall and see what sticks. But this is just rehashing an old post that you ignored earlier.

time magazine is not a scientific journal.

That line is getting really old dude. You need to come up w/ a new one. AO isn't a scientific journal either, so using your logic, I must call BullSneakers on all your AGW posts. Rather silly isn't it?

And, a bunch of those Scientists(?) that wrote your precious 'scientific journals' on AGW lied and misrepresented the facts to suit their own agenda. Remember Climategate? Would you care to spin that one to enlighten the great unwashed?

Anyways, glad to see you're up and running again and rejoining the fun.

[blake20]

All right here we go again. I agree with you that the temp goes through short warming, cooling and stagnant trends. I also agree that if you go with the longer trend you get a warming. It has been warming since the LIA. So by your own correlation, there is no CAWG since it has been warming since the LIA long before the introduction of the Industrial Revolution. Now that you have taken care of my rebuttal on CAWG let's move on to what the real problem is. Poor work being done by climate hacks (I would call them scientists, but I don't think that should apply anymore, since what they do is not science but science fiction)

As for Steve's paper, He didn't have to submit it to peer review, he was pointing out Errors in Mann's work!!! If you look at the actual data used it is no where robust enough to create a hockey stick. Here is another take on it with the proxies all broken down for you. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/3...-it-with-fire/

Also if you read the work done my Steve you would see that the graph has data deleted to make it more of a hockey stick!!

http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/29/keiths-science-trick-mikes-nature-trick-and-phils-combo/

Also Even Mann acknowledged that he screwed up and had work upside down!!! After Steve looked at his work.

http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/07/another-correction-from-upside-down-mann/

Also if you take the Wegman investigation into account you will find that the graph of Mann "no statistical integrity" The problem with this is everyone is using this graph to tell us now that there is a stastical difference in temp of .03 degree rise.


As for your "internet rumor mill" This was a quote from a member of the British Parliament during the Hearings over the CRU climagate issue. (MP means member of British Parliament)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/28/ico_climategate_release_this_rubbish/

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?"

So that is no rumor, that is a fact that they can't reproduce their own work. So maybe you should quit accusing me of a tinfoil hat when yours is buried in the sand. What information is it going to take for you to stop believing???

As for Models that they are using, it doesn't matter what data you input into the model it comes up with a hockey stick graph!!! http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/1...se-of-forcing/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/1...s-the-forcing/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/1...of-chocolates/ http://climateaudit.org/2011/05/15/w...-giss-model-e/



As for CO2 rising reinforcing the increase in temp I don't follow you on that one. The effect of one thing does not make the cause of the other.

If we use the real world readings and not the computer models of the "world" we don't get CAWG. We actually don't get an increase in temp for 10 years even though we had a powerful El Nino 2010 that did not raise temps above 1998 highs. While at the same time CO2 increased. So with this information we can conclude that we Can't "know everything and can discount those things we know about" This is the problem with CAWG Believers, climate is a complex system and the trace gas of CO2 is obviously not the driver that CAWG believers say it is.

Also glad to hear your up and running!!

[blake20]

Now I hate to double post, but here goes. If you use history as a guide then the earth has been much warmer than it is right now during the age of man. The example is the maps of Piri Reis. The maps the he drew were compiled from maps that show the coastline of Antartica, which according to scientists was only Ice free in 4000 bc. It also shows that the earth was much warmer when there were no SUV's or Coal burning power plants, so CO2 must not be the climate driver that climate scientists say it is.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htm

[DevilMan]

How many of us here are old enough to remember the hole in the ozone layer over the south pole? Amazing how that's not even mentioned anymore....

Back at that time it was "The hole in the atmosphere is letting out all of the heat that would be held by the ozone layer, so we are all gonna freeze to death." Now what is it?

Maybe people should stop wasting valuable resources, time and air on trying to figure out how to stop all this crap and just live life for their own instead of trying to tell everyone else how to live theirs? Think about... how many millions of pounds of CO2 are put into the air by people BREATHING who are only trying to figure this out? hehehehee... that's what is causing it all.. Maybe we should blame global warming on all the hacks trying to figure it out!

DM

[dahoeb]

What was on the news today....

Article 1:
"Just five years ago, Charles Monnett was one of the scientists whose observation that several polar bears had drowned in the Arctic Ocean helped galvanize the global warming movement.
Now, the wildlife biologist is on administrative leave and facing accusations of scientific misconduct."
Link to article


Article 2:
"NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing."
Link to article

Gasp! Nothing to see here folks, it's just big oil at work! No reason at all to be skeptical, the science is settled, guys!

[blake20]

dahoeb:

Nice article. I found the Link to the paper

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

Just as I have said before, Models don't match real world observations!!


Devil Man:

I agree with you on that one!!!!

Got one to add for you on the level of accuracy of peer reveiw when it comes to Global Warming

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/29/inspector-generals-transcript-of-drowned-polar-bear-researcher-being-grilled/#more-44258

Seem like you can say anything for global warming and it will make it past peer reveiw!! That is another one of my points I have been trying to make. Yes it's my tinfoil hat again!!! But this is a prime example