What happened to Global Warming?

By on June 20, 2013 9:54:31 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

ZombiesRus5

Join Date 02/2009
+321

What happened to Global Warming?

When I put my first above ground pool in around the late 90's we were able to open it in April and start swimming in May.

Now my pool is just opened and still not warm enough to swim in

 

I'd like some global warming back...

 

2913 Replies +1
Search this post
Subscription Options


Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 17, 2013 3:36:34 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting psychoak,

The people you keep deriding for not being peer reviewed climatologists are people that actually do know what they're talking about.  A retired meteorologist that was studying weather 60 years ago knows damn well that it's a crock of shit when they claim hurricane activity is abnormally high, it's not even high, let alone abnormal.  There's a reason so many of these skeptics are current and former weathermen.  It's their job to know that shit.

Hmm? Age in itself is not a boon. On the contrary you get more set in your ways, and do not accept new research. Research papers should be evaluated on their own merit, not how old the guy writing it was, or how much experience he had. 

Also, I would love for you to get me some sources on that hurricane stuff. Afaik, it's worse than before, but you could very well be right. (the consequences could be more dire though) We have the whole media culture of fear brainwashing us at the moment, but  just as I won't just take your word for it, I do not think the media etc. is right at face value either. 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 17, 2013 4:14:49 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/ushurrlist.htm

 

Check the thirties.  They use the counts to claim we have unusually high hurricane activity, but it's not the landfall counts, just the total storms.  Landfalls are the only consistent data we have, and landfall counts say we're in a completely normal cyclical pattern of storm intensity that follows sun spot cycles and hasn't varied to any relevant degree for at least a century.

 

When most of them peter out before making landfall as major hurricanes, or don't make landfall at all, it seriously skews the data considering no one was tracking all the hurricanes from satellites in orbit.  The US actually broke the record that stood since 1900 for no major landfalls in 2011, 2231 days.  Meanwhile people continued the diatribe about how frequent and severe our storms were because the only one of account just happened to hit New Orleans, a city so corrupt that it didn't bother maintaining it's dyke system despite living on a swamp below sea level.

 

It's the same deal on all the major flooding nonsense, they have to preface the records with "since XXXX" because worse flooding happened in the past.  Sensationalism, not statistical abnormality.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 17, 2013 4:28:10 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting psychoak,


Scientists aren't scientists, they're people with degrees in a variety of fields.  Most of them being referenced are professors.  Norman Borlaug was a scientist, he was studying specific problems and researching ways around them.  If you'd asked him about something outside his work without having him read up on the data used to make the presentation, Joe Blow would have been just as likely to be right.  Some guy teaching chem 101 that reads an article without ever looking at the data they used to achieve their assumptions is not a scientist.  They're a teacher.  You have bought into an appeal to authority, without even checking their source, just as all those employed people with busy lives have in spite of their degrees.  I checked.  As such, I can indeed claim to be far more knowledgeable in this area than the vast majority of the peer reviewers and survey respondents that just happen to have degrees in vaguely related fields.  Actual educated climatologists are all but non-existent.  The people working on this "problem" aren't climatologists either, they're physicists, geologists, astronomers, meteorologists, paleo-climatologists.

 

I do not know anything about economics. I do not know anything about law. I cannot use knowledge of those fields to assess how much you know about them based on your post. I do know about science and the culture of science and academia.

 

-"Scientists aren't scientists, they're people with degrees in varying fields". I'm not going to say anything about this.

 

-"Most of them being referenced are professors." Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor

From Wiki-"Professors are qualified experts who generally perform the following:

"A professor is a highly accomplished and recognized academic, and the title is in most cases awarded only after decades of scholarly work to senior academics. In the United States and Canada the title of professor is granted to most scholars with doctorate degrees or equivalent qualifications (typically Ph.D.s) who teach in two- and four-year colleges and universities, and is used in the titles assistant professor and associate professor, which are not considered professor-level positions [2] in many other countries, as well as for full professors."

 

So, deferring to a professor in an area of his or her expertise seems to be preferable to deferring to a guy who claims to be more knowledgeable than the professors are for reasons that are nebulous to me.

 Doug Osheroff (one of my former professors)-worked at Bell Labs and won a Nobel Prize in Physics.

Steve Chu (another former professor)-Bell Labs and won a Nobel Prize in Physics.

Michael Peskin (another former professor)-SLAC (he didn't work at Bell, so he is a dolt).

Peter Michelson (grandson of Michelson of the Morley-Michelson experiment and another former professor who is know the Chair of the Dept of Physics at Stanford)-Ames Research Center (another imbecile).

And so on. These guys are not scientists; they are just professors and should not be viewed as knowledgeable according to you.

 

-"Norman Borlaug was a scientist, he was studying specific problems and researching ways around them.  If you'd asked him about something outside his work without having him read up on the data used to make the presentation, Joe Blow would have been just as likely to be right."

True.

 

-"Some guy teaching chem 101 that reads an article without ever looking at the data they used to achieve their assumptions is not a scientist."

True. But who is talking about some guy who teaches intro chem? I'm certainly not. I don't know where this is coming from.

 

-The same can be said for the rest of your paragraph until this:"Actual educated climatologists are all but non-existent.  The people working on this "problem" aren't climatologists either, they're physicists, geologists, astronomers, meteorologists, paleo-climatologists."

Physics is at the foundation of understanding the climate. The foundation. The fact that you don't or can't understand this shows exactly what you do not know (in addition to your not understanding what a professorship, especially in the natural sciences, actually entails. If you think any professor at any major university just got the title out of the cracker jack box instead of earning it via research, you know nothing of academia).

 

Fluid mechanics both air, winds and sea (Navier–Stokes equations, Boyles law)-check

Radiation and conduction of heat (the heat equation, inverse square law)-check

Phases of fluids (water leading to cloud formation, latent heat of phase change)-check

et cetera.

 

I do not think it is too much of a stretch to see how chemists, astronomers, meteorologists, etc can meaningfully contribute the understanding the climate as well.

 

You do not know anything about academia. You do not know what it takes to become a professor. You do not know anything about physics (at least not enough to know how the discipline would be applicable to understanding the climate).

 

You do say this: "As such, I can indeed claim to be far more knowledgeable in this area than the vast majority of the peer reviewers and survey respondents that just happen to have degrees in vaguely related fields." and yet you cannot see the relevance of the aforementioned disciplines. I see this statement as evidence of either hyperbole or delusion. Based on your lack of knowledge of this subject, to me it calls into question what you do or do not know about the other subjects you proselytize about on this thread and forum.

 

Oh...for your enjoyment, here is a list of organizations that have members that you are also far more knowledgeable than as well.

http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 17, 2013 4:53:37 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting psychoak,
It's fucking normal dude. The change from this cycle to the last is a small fraction of the change over the course of a cycle, and the cycles themselves didn't blunt the warming during the 80's and 90's. This is the exact same trend in solar activity that we had then. They did predict

An anomalous 0.1% change on a 300 degree Kelvin scale is more than enough to explain the difference in temperature, after all the temperature increase so far is fairly small, only about 0.6 degrees. A small effect on a small effect is a "relatively significant" effect.

Anyway those wiki data only go to 2006 or so, that's not enough, you're missing a large part of the last 10 years.

http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/14/global-warming-solar-minimum-barely-dent

Quoting psychoak,
What volcanoes? The only halfway relevant volcanic eruption we've had in this time frame was the one in Iceland, and it was a 4,

There was also one in Argentina, or somewhere near there.

Those are just extra contributing factors that act on a very short timescale. You are the one whining about models that cannot predict temperature changes on a timescale of 10 years - so according to your own reasoning, you have to look at every details to see if they can explain a particular peak or low in the temperature record.

http://www.livescience.com/27581-volcanoes-sulfur-dioxide-global-warming.html

This article also mentioned Pinatubo, and how that volcano cooled the earth. I remembes some freaky rainy summers around that time... or maybe that was another time

Quoting psychoak,
We have accelerated global warming factors, but global warming is going in reverse.

Only on a short timescale. The effect of the sun and of the volcanous are short-lived. CO2 will be present in the atmosphere for a very long time. Namely, these effects can be included in the climate models and when you'd correct the temperature effects of these things... the models show that there is no reversal at all. It's just part of a weird coincidence of a longer solar minimum and some volcanic eruptions. As soon as the sun gets hotter again and the volcanic particles dissipate, temperatures will rise again and then some... maybe a whole 1 degree! [which is little, but well... we are nitpicking here about short-term trends and changes...]

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 17, 2013 4:58:16 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Yes, you've posted your magic consensus repeatedly.

 

I've had a few years of physics.  I understand the basic principles of everything involved from my high school AP and university classes.

 

That doesn't mean I can look at a paper saying how adjustments were made, why adjustments were made, and know they actually were accurate.  It's a claim.  A claim is substantiated by checking the facts, not by having an education.  I actually do have a formal education in exactly what you're referencing.  I do not have a degree.

 

The people with doctorates in the appropriate fields are the ones that actually understand what all those wrong models are comprised of.  They're still wrong whether you know or not, but it takes a guy with substantial education to recognize all the various factors being applied.  I don't have the foggiest idea what some of the factors are.  I've educated myself to a great deal on this subject, but I will gladly bow to the doctorate on the minutia of the water cycle.  The model is, however, wrong, whether I know why it's wrong or not, when it fails to actually model future trends.  They can go back and fiddle with the inputs to make it fit the past all they want, but until they get one that predicts, it doesn't matter.

 

The problem with AGW isn't something you need an education to see.  It doesn't even help.  If you don't actually check the source data, mark the adjustments made, and see for yourself whether they actually were as claimed or not, you have no idea whether the temperature record is accurate or not.  I did.  Peer reviewers don't, the data doesn't even come with it.  The GHCN records are actually a rarity in that the people doing the reviews were physically capable of checking the source data, because they're posted government records.  Such things typically aren't even available.

 

Temperatures would have to actually be increasing abnormally for there to be something scientific to argue.  Any high school dropout could debunk this theory because they haven't.  We have about 40 years of solid records, showing a 30 year upward trend, followed by a decline.  They were already teaching the climate cycle responsible for that when I was in grade school.

 

The longer term records have been shown to be questionable, if not outright fraudulent.  From cherry picking tree rings to show a warming trend that wasn't there, to making unfounded adjustments in excess of a degree to "correct" for time of observation biases that had fractions of the impact stated, where they existed to begin with.  The skeptics are just people that looked and came back with a WTF.

 

Edit:  What the Fuck?

 

Geoman, you just shot yourself down while claiming we're in something unusual.  Do you actually look at the shit you post?

 

Our unusual solar minimum is right there, graphed for all to see, and completely fucking normal.  We're not down .1%, we're down .01%.  You're switching the change in intensity over the cycle, with the change in the intensity of the cycle itself.

 

You then toss in an article claiming that a grand solar minimum, which we ain't in, would only knock .3 centigrade off the temperatures.  We already dropped twice that from where we're supposed to be.  Is it not registering that we're half a degree cooler right now than the last IPCC predictions were?

 

Then you counter piss poor volcanic activity with you think there was a volcano in Argentina.

 

It's another little nothing, not even as big as the one in Iceland.  The kind of cooling we've seen, which started before either of these volcanoes, would take dozens of major volcanic eruptions spanning the last decade.  Which would have radically increased CO2 levels.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 17, 2013 5:16:53 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting psychoak,
The skeptics are just people that looked and came back with a WTF.

Because they misunderstood what they were looking at and thought it was much simpler than it actually was and had an agenda driven cherry pick and took things out of context. As I said, Dunning Kruger Effect in effect.

For example:

Quoting psychoak,
followed by a decline

A plateau in increased surface temperatures does not equal a decline in total increased heat energy in our global system. As has already been pointed out to every "skeptic".

1% goes into warming the air. But yes, by all means, let's focus on that as meaningful. Do you understand why this is not accurate?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/27/the-willful-idiocy-of-alleged-global-temperature-decline-is-based-on-a-mirage/

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 17, 2013 5:44:21 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

So where is all the heat going? About 93% goes into the oceans, much of which were largely unmonitored until the 2000s, 3% into land and 3% into melting ice.

 

Largely unmonitored.  As in we know fuck all about that which we speak of.  We've been looking at something for ten years and assume it wasn't completely reversed in the 90's and accounted for the warming trend itself.

 

They shoot themselves down further, el'nino is in abeyance.  If the ocean can drop surface temperatures this much by a change in currents, it stands to reason that maybe it was the unusually strong el'nino cycles that were causing much of the warming.  It's one or the other, either the ocean can't explain the rise in surface temperatures, or it can.  Pick one.

 

Dunning Kruger until you're blue in the face, it wont change cherry picked tree rings into something else, and it wont make a survey of the entire USHCN into a case of cherry picking stations.  It isn't the skeptics that have had to cherry pick things to get them to fit the theory.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 17, 2013 6:47:21 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting psychoak,
Largely unmonitored. As in we know fuck all about that which we speak of.

Speak for yourself...

Unmonitored until the 2000s??

The latest IPCC report is most confident in data collected between 1971-2010.

"Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence). It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010 (see Figure SPM.3), and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971. {3.2, Box 3.1}"

But oh right, this is all based on faked data. And peer review is overrated. And any high school dropout can see through the errors that these scientists are making...

The 34 page Gish Gallop continues...

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 18, 2013 2:40:43 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Psyhcoak, a big volcanic eruption like Pinatubo had a much larger cooling effect than we're observing know.

We're talking about fractions of a degree here... that doesn't take 1 major volcanic eruption, a few smaller ones can contribute to that as well.

It's not about the solar maximum being deeper by 0.02% ...  it's about it being longer. It takes the sun longer to heat up. Here, the graph in this article shows it better.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090123212001002

In any case, the temperature variation we are talking about are very small. It doesn't take much to upset a small trend for a short while.

 

So you have taken physics classes, then I think it's even stranger that you fail to comprehend these things. You just have no sense of scale and proportion, and that makes you a very poor judgment of these things.

I suppose you've never taken a geology class... you just don't have a clue about how incredibly slow the earth moves and processes things.

Ah, found it, this one is perhaps better.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/28/1785461/as-scientists-predicted-global-warming-continues/

It shows the temperature record of the last xxx years, corrected for known variability.

In any case the temperature changes we are talking about are of the order of 0.3 degrees... imho that's nitpicking.

Imo it's better to learn from the very ancient past, when the atmospheric conditions were more like the conditions we face if we continue to terraform our planet like we're doing now. After all, we're only at the very beginning of this process and the current less-than-one-degree increase we're witnessing, is just the first increase of many that we'll face in the coming years.

THAT is what models tell us. We poor all of our knowledge into a comprehensive model, and let the computer figure out what our knowledge tells us what will happen IF this or IF that. IF we continue to terraform earth, then the models agree with the very ancient data - that the earth will become much hotter than it is now.

So let's appreciate this kind of knowledge and let us not throw that all away just because of a 0.2 degree inconsistency .... or you can wait about 50 years for more data, data which will just confirm that the models were correct (because the models are pretty damn good because our knowledge is pretty damn good). And we'll have wasted 50 years of our time.

But whatever, I don't really care that much. You can continue this nitpicky discussion without me, for real this time, no kidding.

 

 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 18, 2013 9:00:48 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

A bit optimistic here:

http://www.livescience.com/40525-tech-gains-powering-wind-energy.html

But still... interesting to see how China isn't lagging behind.

I don't know what's driving this... maybe it is a simple matter of reducing the reliance on (expensive) energy imports? Or maybe it's because China cannot dig up coals fast enough to meet demand? Or maybe it's because they want cleaner air? Or maybe a bit of everything.

It also mentions wind turbines that are 250 meters high and blades that are 80 meters long !! I wonder if the tips of the wings go supersonic. I'm not such a fan of wind energy, but this is awesome, no matter what.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 18, 2013 12:04:03 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

China is a fascinating subject on it's own, and they will feel the consequences of global warming as well. (the north is arid and water starved, and is 2/3rds of their agricultural output, increased global temperatures will not help that) However they are really a multiheaded beast. China is too big to simplify, there are so many different things going on at once, that they make understanding US politics seem small in comparison, and that is not a small accomplishment.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 18, 2013 12:50:37 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Quoting flagyl,
NO ONE CREDIBLE IS DISPUTING THEIR DATA

NO ONE DISPUTING THEIR DATA IS CREDIBLE

 

There, fixed it for ya.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 18, 2013 3:05:08 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Daiwa,


Quoting flagyl, reply 764NO ONE CREDIBLE IS DISPUTING THEIR DATA

NO ONE DISPUTING THEIR DATA IS CREDIBLE

 

There, fixed it for ya.

 

If you got the data, I got the time. If you don't, well then...yea.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 18, 2013 3:11:36 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Still going on about volcanoes...

 

Hopefully you really have checked out, because you're always wrong.

 

Mt. Pinatubo and Mt. St. Helens are stratovolcanoes.  Mt. St. Helens itself was insignificant, a tenth of the scale of the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo.  Neither of them created any long term trend in temperature changes.  The short term cooling from Mt. Pinatubo was significant enough to get a mention, but it lasted less than two years.  Over a degree?  Please, you can't even spot them on the temperature record.  Anyone even trying to claim that is pulling it out of their ass.  We haven't had an eruption that big in over a century.

 

Their insignificance is completely irrelevant though, because they were major eruptions.  They had enough power to send that ash deep into the stratosphere, which is how you get global cooling.

 

That little nothing in Iceland only made it halfway through the troposphere.  If it doesn't even break the cloud layer, it doesn't do dick.  The ash gets downed by rain and calm weather.  It's all but completely out of the air in a month.  Every climatologist knows this, because they've spent the last couple decades explaining to us why volcanoes can't be responsible for the warming trends we've had.

 

But hey, maybe Eyjafjallajokull was just so badass that it time traveled 7 years back, and bitch slapped the climate into doing it's bidding.  Did anyone check to see if it was related to Chuck Norris?

 

Our deep solar minimum.  Um, no.  It's not.  If you found something that went longer than 3 cycles, you'd know.  But that's the nature of AGW bloggers, 30 years is as far back as they can safely go without looking like fucking retards.

 

The last cycle was higher than the one during the 70's, and this new cycle that we're in that might turn out to be more in line with the Dalton Minimum, like our magic volcano, is long after the trend started.  The sun not getting hotter in 2010 doesn't make the temperatures decline in advance.

 

This is all irrelevant though, because as everyone knows the sun doesn't vary enough to change the trajectory of our temperature.  After all, they've got that down pat as part of their explanation that it must be CO2, because the natural forcings just can't account for the surface temperature changes we were seeing.  Even a Maunder Minimum would only get us halfway to where we're at.  That's part of the argument that nothing will save us, it was only good for .3 degrees, and we were supposed to gain that much over the last ten years instead of lose it.

 

But hey, that's okay.  You can still fall back on the myth that less energy leaving the planet than goes in somehow proves global warming.  Never mind that the whole concept of photosynthesis is to convert solar energy into plant life.  Oops.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 18, 2013 3:20:49 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Hmm.. so maybe a solution to the global warming if we can't fix it slow could be to make one of the supervolcanoes blow up? (I think we have like 10 of those right?) The US national park one Old Faithful? I think, some volcano in india, and indonesia etc.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 18, 2013 3:37:36 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/nasa-massively-tampering-with-the-us-temperature-record/

 

http://notrickszone.com/2012/03/01/data-tamperin-giss-caught-red-handed-manipulaing-data-to-produce-arctic-climate-history-revision/

 

Looks like NASA finally got wise and pulled the raw data sets, I didn't find them.  I do remember the press briefing from 1999 though, but I'm just lying, or maybe I'm just not smart enough to know why Hansen knew there wasn't any warming in the US in 1999, but then doctored the data and changed his mind...

 

Blowing up supervolcanoes would be entertaining.  But according to AGW, they just make the greenhouse effect worse in the long run.  You get a few years of cold, followed by much higher CO2 levels resulting in warming.

 

On the plus side, after we kill a couple billion people, the surviving greenies will feel better about how many people there are around to screw up their precious planet.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 18, 2013 3:57:39 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Quoting flagyl,
Have any/all of these contrarian papers been used to synthesize a competing model?

First, they are not "contrarian" papers.  That is ignorance talking.  They are scientific papers.

Second, they already support the model that is in existence and has yet to be disproven.  Science 101 - Until disproven, the null hypothesis remains in effect.

Third, I did not give you a comprehensive list as I was not asked for that.  Merely a list.  I have other links as well.

Fourth, the contention was the IPCC was some kind of holy grail of Climate Science.  By showing you recent papers that were NOT included I debunked that assertion.  I did not set out to prove an alternate hypothesis.

 

Please read what is said, and absorb it.  That way at least you can respond on point.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 18, 2013 4:09:50 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Quoting flagyl,
Ok...please show me a DIRECT QUOTE from Feynman that shows he states the AGW is false.

Now that would not be scientific, now would it?  Scientists do not go around saying things are absolutely anything.  They offer conjecture and data to support a hypothesis.  Since there is no proof that AGW is false, only a politician would make such a stupid claim.  Feynman merely states that the data does not support the conclusion of AGW.

 

Which is scientific.  It helps when you learn the scientific method.

Quoting Ekko_Tek,
Climate models and IPCC predictions are actually quite accurate.

Actually that is not true: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1972.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201309

 

And just an FYI - I would hesitate to use a source where the owner and moderators like to dress up in Nazi Uniforms (SkS): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 18, 2013 4:12:18 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Quoting sjaminei,
I'll try to be nice now, lets be friends even if we disagree? BFF's! ^^

Stop lying.   You had 3 ad hominems in your one sentence dismissal.  I called you a child because that is what you acted like.  If you want to discuss this rationally, stop throwing around false allegations and petty ad hominems.

 

Quoting sjaminei,
We are all tools for fools.

You are welcome to be a tool for anyone you please.  Stop trying to project your own problems onto others.

Quoting sjaminei,
Opinions based on facts is what counts.

No, opinions do not count.  Facts do.  Learn the difference.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 18, 2013 4:16:20 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Quoting Ekko_Tek,
A plateau in increased surface temperatures does not equal a decline in total increased heat energy in our global system. As has already been pointed out to every "skeptic".

The whole theme of AGW is that there has been no increase in heat energy in the system.  If that were the case, then all warming would be a result of the only significant source of energy, the sun.  But that is not what is being debated.

The debate is the heat retention.  And the models you quoted earlier showed nothing about the heat retention being sequestered in the ocean.  They all showed the heat retention going to warm the planet.  When that did not happen (as is the case in the past 16.7 years), they came up with an alternative supposition.  A supposition with no data to support it yet.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 18, 2013 4:24:13 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Dr Guy,


Quoting flagyl, reply 816Have any/all of these contrarian papers been used to synthesize a competing model?

First, they are not "contrarian" papers.  That is ignorance talking.  They are scientific papers.

Second, they already support the model that is in existence and has yet to be disproven.  Science 101 - Until disproven, the null hypothesis remains in effect.

Third, I did not give you a comprehensive list as I was not asked for that.  Merely a list.  I have other links as well.

Fourth, the contention was the IPCC was some kind of holy grail of Climate Science.  By showing you recent papers that were NOT included I debunked that assertion.  I did not set out to prove an alternate hypothesis.

 

Please read what is said, and absorb it.  That way at least you can respond on point.

 

No absorb this-You play semantics. Gamow-the universe is expanding. Hoyle-the universe is steady state. The inability to see that these are opposing thoughts is ignorant...do you follow?

 

The model is where? Oh yea...nowhere.

 

By telling you that all papers are not created equally and you still not grasping that fact lets me know that you are incapable of being discriminating. This is why you post as you do.

 

Apparently, the point has skewered you.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 18, 2013 4:26:11 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Dr Guy,


Quoting flagyl, reply 817Ok...please show me a DIRECT QUOTE from Feynman that shows he states the AGW is false.

Now that would not be scientific, now would it?  Scientists do not go around saying things are absolutely anything.  They offer conjecture and data to support a hypothesis.  Since there is no proof that AGW is false, only a politician would make such a stupid claim.  Feynman merely states that the data does not support the conclusion of AGW.

 

 

Again...I ask you-show me the quote where RP says that the data does not support AGW? I'm waiting.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 18, 2013 4:27:14 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Dr Guy,


No, opinions do not count.  Facts do.  Learn the difference.

 

You have no idea, do you?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 18, 2013 4:32:55 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting psychoak,
You can still fall back on the myth that less energy leaving the planet than goes in somehow proves global warming. Never mind that the whole concept of photosynthesis is to convert solar energy into plant life. Oops.

It's not clear what you are trying to say here. Are you trying to say you think photosynthesis proves global warming is a myth?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 18, 2013 5:00:53 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Dr Guy,

Quoting flagyl, reply 817Ok...please show me a DIRECT QUOTE from Feynman that shows he states the AGW is false.

Now that would not be scientific, now would it?  Scientists do not go around saying things are absolutely anything.  They offer conjecture and data to support a hypothesis.  Since there is no proof that AGW is false, only a politician would make such a stupid claim.  Feynman merely states that the data does not support the conclusion of AGW.

 

Which is scientific.  It helps when you learn the scientific method.

Quoting Ekko_Tek, reply 818Climate models and IPCC predictions are actually quite accurate.

Actually that is not true: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1972.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201309

 

And just an FYI - I would hesitate to use a source where the owner and moderators like to dress up in Nazi Uniforms (SkS): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/

 

1. Feynman died in 1988 so even if he had said something about AGW data it wouldn't be relevant to 2013. Never mind the fact that I don't think he ever said any such thing - where did you find this quote?

2. Thank you for at least citing a source, more than most arguing against AGW. However, the paper you cited only deals with surface temperatures not increasing as much as expected by the models, which we've already dealt with a number of times in this thread. Surface temperatures account for a very small percentage of total increased heat.

3. I'll just ignore the last bit - I'm not really interested in the mudslinging going on between blogs.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Stardock Forums v1.0.0.0    #108433  walnut3   Server Load Time: 00:00:00.0004437   Page Render Time: