|
Post by dopeydog on Jan 16, 2009 20:31:18 GMT
One interesting thing about people in life & in debates is the way they behave. when someone abandons the course of reason, turns from the path of rational expression & begins to label, they give themselves away. "Alarmist" James Hansen is the "New Lysensko" not labels? hmm I know of no person who disagrees with agw that has called for Nuremburg trials for agw proponents or convicting agw proponents for crimes against humanity or taking away there AMS certification or for civil disobedience or vandalism against agw offices and structures. All we would like to see is an OPEN and FREE debate on this issue. As for comparing Hansen to Lysenko, I think the comparison is more than justified. I have no doubt that if he could James Hansen would try not only oil company executives (which he has already called for) for crimes against humanity but most of us on this web site for any crime he could could invent. Lysenko stifled free and open scientific with guns and thugs. So would (will??) James Hansen.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Jan 16, 2009 21:40:16 GMT
Give me a break. Calling skeptics "deniers" says all we need to know about where the true ideologists reside. Sometimes it fits. I would describe many creationists as deniers. If ideology forces rejection of a conclusion apriori followed by an attempt to justify the rejection in whatever way possible, then that's pretty much denial. just look at Avery's latest claim that global tempeature has dropped 0.6C in the past 2 years (see www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/cnn-is-spun-right-round-baby-right-round/). If he was a real skeptic and wasn't simply denying then why would he need to use employ such an incorrect claim? We were told for years that as AGW increased, heat waves and record high temps would become more and more common - and that makes perfect sense. The European summer heatwave of 2003 was widely cited as a result of global warming. But now that people are pointing out the increasing frequency of cold/snow events, the AGWers are shouting, "No, that's just weather, doesn't mean anything!" Classic double standard. There are just as many "deniers" and "ideologists" among the AGW ranks, if not more.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 17, 2009 18:00:42 GMT
Sometimes it fits. I would describe many creationists as deniers. If ideology forces rejection of a conclusion apriori followed by an attempt to justify the rejection in whatever way possible, then that's pretty much denial. just look at Avery's latest claim that global tempeature has dropped 0.6C in the past 2 years (see www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/cnn-is-spun-right-round-baby-right-round/). If he was a real skeptic and wasn't simply denying then why would he need to use employ such an incorrect claim? Well, he's obviously a little late. Even at the time this 0.6C claim was misleading. It was put forward as a cooling trend even though it was caused by a la nina and therefore temperature was bound to recover, which it since has. Avery's repetition of this outdated claim only compounds the misleadingness of it. There is ~0.6C difference from January 2007 to January 2008. But mostly, if not all, because January 2007 was affected by the peak of an El Nino and January 2008 was affected by the peak of a La Nina. But when Avery claims that difference represents the trend of the past 2 years, he is either ignorant of climate basics, or he is deliberately trying to twist statistics to mislead people. There is no way the following data can be described truthfully as "global tempeature has dropped 0.6C in the past 2 years": www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2007The 0.6C claim was the very first thing he said in that interview. Why not stick to facts if he has a good case? Tamino made a good point about Avery's claim. basically to the effect that if he thinks the line between two cherrypicked months constitutes the global temperature trend: Then this would be just as valid: If so it will still be misleading to claim the drop minimum is the trend when it is clearly La Nina and will recover. The PDO is flat over the 20th century, it cannot explain any of the warming. The solar increase was in bulk at the beginning of the 20th century. It also doesn't explain stratospheric cooling. co2 forcing is the major driving force across decades, not within a single decade. The 5 year average, let alone a 10 year average, shows no reason to assume temperature rise has stopped. The skeptics are actually shooting themselves in the foot by placing so much emphasis on cooling, because when it doesn't happen it will be hard for them to switch back to the "warming is natural and expected" argument. www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/mean:60The physics of co2 is the basis for it's significant warming effect given current and future rises. If man hadn't emitted any co2 over the past 200 years, the co2 trend would be largely flat with with noise - peaks in el nino years and troughs in la nina years. Human emissions explain the trend, not the year to year variation. It's hardly an assumption when every model of climate ever built shows this and none have been built that can explain the recent warming naturally.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 18, 2009 16:07:30 GMT
The only people that seem to be in denial are the ones that assume CO2 provides the dominant forcing of the climate now. It's hardly an assumption when every model of climate ever built shows this and none have been built that can explain the recent warming naturally. Models are driven by the assumption that they are an accurate depiction of the conditions and processes that are being modeled. Its a circular argument to suggest that those assumptions are then scientific evidence of CO2 being the dominant driver of climate. We know now beyond any shadow of a doubt that the IPCC model is not an accurate depiction of the conditions and processes being modeled because today's temperature is different than what the model predicted. Its all fine and good to go back and plug in stuff like El Ninos and La Ninas to patch the model up; but you are back to ground zero at that point in time with no statistical evidence that your model is nothing but a mirror of the past, because all you have done is modified your model based upon recent historical changes. You still haven't achieved any kind of level of predictability. We see Hansen stretching his linear relationships via longer and longer smoothing (a nice strategy for hiding recent trends). We see his data sets rocking to keep the line linearly upward sufficiently to look impressive. And we know the guy advocates civil disobedience when it comes to AGW. Doesn't exactly instill any confidence. I noticed Gavin over at Real Climate explaining why the particular CO2 model was used. He explained the model did not attempt to reflect longterm historical temperature cycles because they were not linear. However, the CO2 assumption is a linear cause associated with the linear rise in the temperature in recent decades. I think the problem with that is when you look at sine waves of long periods, short periods on that wave tend to look linear. Thus Gavin is using a circular argument also. Bottom line is none of those models are climate models. . . .they are not even trying to be climate models. They are CO2 models and they are trying to predict the climate. . . .so far not so well.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jan 19, 2009 8:50:02 GMT
Even at the time this 0.6C claim was misleading. It was put forward as a cooling trend even though it was caused by a la nina and therefore temperature was bound to recover, which it since has. Avery's repetition of this outdated claim only compounds the misleadingness of it.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Jan 19, 2009 14:38:50 GMT
Interesting, but in your analogy, the CO2 ought to be the egg shell.
|
|
|
Post by cyberzombie on Jan 19, 2009 19:08:52 GMT
Does this discussion belong in another thread? "Useful Climate Links"...
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 19, 2009 20:35:50 GMT
good point, I was going to reply but i'll desist and leave it there.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Jan 20, 2009 4:13:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Jan 20, 2009 22:27:00 GMT
The great debate: 2007 (Audio at the link( 'Global Warming Is Not a Crisis' www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9082151Vote of audience before debate: 30% agreed, 57 against: After debate: 46% agreed, 42 against. (Which shows most people will listen if they ever get hold of the evidence) For: the late Michael Crichton Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London Against: Brenda Ekwurzel, (PhD) climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute Richard C.J. Somerville, professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California
|
|
|
Post by william on Jan 25, 2009 16:34:59 GMT
The follow is a published review paper by J. Kirkby that summarizes the data and analysis that supports the assertion that solar magnetic cycle changes which modulation planetary clouds is a first order climate forcing function. Kirkby includes 170 published papers to support the assertion that solar cycle changes and changes to the geomagnetic field modulation planetary cloud cover which in turn modulates planetary temperature. This is a good start if you are interesting in the mechanisms (There are more than one.) and the current research. arxiv.org/abs/0804.1938This is a link to a Canadian Government site that provides ice cover on the Great Lakes. Lake Erie is frozen. Great Lake ice cover matches the 1994 record and may reach the 1979 record. ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/app/WsvPrdCanQry.cfm?CanID=11080&Lang=eng
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Jan 28, 2009 8:30:16 GMT
Antarctic Warming: a few links to the debate.
Marohasy, Jennifer. “Modellers Remove Evidence of Cooling and Editor Removes Comment by Climate Sceptic.” jennifermarohasy.com. jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/01/modellers-remove-evidence-of-cooling-and-editor-removes-comment-by-climate-sceptic/. McIntyre, Steve. “Antarctic RegEM.” Blog. Climate Audit, January 21, 2009. www.climateaudit.org/?p=4914. ---. “Steig's Silence.” Climate Audit , January 24, 2009. www.climateaudit.org/?p=4945. Morano, Marc. “Scientists, Data Challenge New Antarctic ‘Warming’ Study .” Government. U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page, January 21, 2009. epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=fc7db6ad-802a-23ad-43d1-2651eb2297d6&IsPrint=True. Pielke Sr., Roger. “Follow Up On Today’s AP Article By Seth Bornenstein Entitled “Study: Antarctica Joins Rest Of Globe In Warming”.” Blog. Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News, January 21, 2009. climatesci.org/2009/01/21/follow-up-on-todays-ap-article-by-seth-bornenstein-entitled-study-antarctica-joins-rest-of-globe-in-warming/. “Satellites Confirm Half-Century of West Antarctic Warming.” Scientific. NASA GISS: Research News: , January 21, 2009. www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20090121/. Steig, Eric J., and Michael E. Mann. “State of Antarctica: red or blue?.” RealClimate. www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/state-of-antarctica-red-or-blue/. Steig, Eric J., David P. Schneider, Scott D. Rutherford, Michael E. Mann, Josefino C. Comiso, and Drew T. Shindell. “ Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year (Abstract).” Nature 457, no. 7228 (January 22, 2008): 459-462. doi:10.1038/nature07669. dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature07669. ---. “ Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year (Complete).” Nature 457 (January 22, 2009): 459 - 462. doi:10.1038. thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/steigetalnature09.pdf. Watts, Anthony. “ Antarctica Warming? An Evolution of Viewpoint.” Blog Summaries. ICECAP, January 22, 2009. icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/antarctica_warming_an_evolution_of_viewpoint1/.
This was cross-posted from "Global Warming and Weather Discussion ,\"Science Daily Needs Global Cooling Research Data", reply # 22 solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=globalwarming&thread=398&page=2#10103
|
|
|
Post by crakar24 on Jan 30, 2009 5:05:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by socold on Feb 7, 2009 4:23:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by brazilian on Feb 11, 2009 13:30:28 GMT
|
|