The Global Warming Debate...

[billvon 3,116]

>And when the 'peer review' is subsequently proven false?

That question doesn't make a lot of sense. Peer review is a process, not a falsifiable conclusion.

Would a foreign policy error by a democratic government "prove democracy false?"

>When you take into account *known* increased temperatures on Mars
> and Neptune, it seems logical to NOT dismiss solar output as a primary
>forcing.

Right. And when you take into account dropping upper atmosphere temperatures on Saturn, which conclusion would make the most sense?

1) Solar variability is increasing the output of Neptune's sun and decreasing the output of Saturn's sun.

2) We may not fully understand the climate of planets we have never even been to.

We understand, and can quantify, the contribution of solar variability to climate change. It is miniscule compared to the CO2 contribution.

>A question, here - *if* CO2 were driving the temperature after the
>initial spike, would there not be a 'line cross' somewhere in the graphs
>where CO2 levels would *lead* the temperature line?

Yes - if you had a graph that showed contributions by each forcing. We don't have solid numbers from that far ago, but we do know that the Milankovitch forcing was minor compared to the contributions via the CO2 concentrations. In other words, CO2 amplified the fairly weak Milankovitch forcing and made it global.

From Nature 329:
--------------------------
Vostok climate and CO2 records suggest that CO2 changes have had an important climatic role during the late Pleistocene in amplifying the relatively weak orbital forcing. The existence of the 100-kyr cycle and the synchronism between Northern and Southern Hemisphere climates may have their origin in the large glacial–interglacial CO2 changes.
-------------------------

>All good points...and I believe that some of those point are being
>disregarded in favor of the current theory.

?? All those points are PART of the current IPCC theory!

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Agreed - which is why I also read the views of the scientists that disagree with the currrent consensus.

You read them in the manner a drunk uses a lightpost ...for support rather than illumination. -HLM

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[mnealtx 0]

Nature magazine's "review" of M+M was subsequently proven false not only by the reports I mentioned above, but by NOAA re-checking the data and issuing a correction to the data.

>> If you had a graph that showed contributions by each forcing.

Isn't that what we have NOW?? I'm not talking about the historical record in this case. We have current temperature and CO2 level readings. If CO2 was the primary driver, then why hasn't it crossed the temperature line?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,116]

>Nature magazine's "review" of M+M was subsequently proven false
>not only by the reports I mentioned above . . . .

No, it really wasn't. It contained errors and was not published for that reason. The explanation by Gavin Schmidt (NASA NISS) and Caspar Amman (NCAR) :

================
MM05 claim that the reconstruction using only the first 2 PCs with their convention is significantly different to MBH98. Since PC 3,4 and 5 (at least) are also significant they are leaving out good data. It is mathematically wrong to retain the same number of PCs if the convention of standardization is changed. In this case, it causes a loss of information that is very easily demonstrated. Firstly, by showing that any such results do not resemble the results from using all data, and by checking the validation of the reconstruction for the 19th century. The MM version of the reconstruction can be matched by simply removing the N. American tree ring data along with the 'St Anne River' Northern treeline series from the reconstruction (shown in yellow below). Compare this curve with the ones shown above.

As you might expect, throwing out data also worsens the validation statistics, as can be seen by eye when comparing the reconstructions over the 19th century validation interval. Compare the green line in the figure below to the instrumental data in red.
====================

>but by NOAA re-checking the data and issuing a correction to the data.

That is a separate issue, relating to _instrumental_ records, not _proxy_ records (as MM05 was referring to.) Indeed, MM05's entire complaint was not concerning the accuracy of the data, it was referring to the validity of various statistical means of isolating valid signals from noisy data (like tree ring thickness.)

>Isn't that what we have NOW?

You mean what we know about the forcings happening right now? Yes, see below.

>We have current temperature and CO2 level readings. If CO2 was
>the primary driver, then why hasn't it crossed the temperature line?

?? It has. It's now the primary driver.

I assume you don't mean one line crossing another on a paper. A graph of temperature in degrees C does not have the same units as a graph showing forcing in watts, so any "crossing" of the lines is meaningless. I could plot a graph showing CO2 crossing the temperature line whenever I like by choosing my vertical axis units and offsets; it wouldn't prove a thing.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Isn't that what we have NOW?

You mean what we know about the forcings happening right now? Yes, see below.

>We have current temperature and CO2 level readings. If CO2 was
>the primary driver, then why hasn't it crossed the temperature line?

?? It has. It's now the primary driver.

(I assume you don't mean one line crossing another on a paper. A graph of temperature in degrees C does not have the same units as a graph showing forcing in watts, so any "crossing" of the lines is meaningless.)

And they can show that with any reduction in the amount of CO2 that the temperature drops?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,116]

>And they can show that with any reduction in the amount of CO2 that the
>temperature drops?

Are you still referring to the actual, current forcings?

If so then the only way to demonstrate that is to reduce the amount of CO2 and observe the temperature. I would be willing to do that experiment, but I suspect you would not be.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>When you take into account *known* increased temperatures on Mars
> and Neptune, it seems logical to NOT dismiss solar output as a primary
>forcing.

Right. And when you take into account dropping upper atmosphere temperatures on Saturn, which conclusion would make the most sense?

That human activity is causing it, bill, and steps should be taken to maintain the environments of those planets. Not that the recent rise in Martian temperatures corresponds with the landings of the Mars rovers. And Saturn cooling? We have no idea about the heat on Saturn's surface (if it has one).

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,116]

>That human activity is causing it, bill, and steps should be taken
>to maintain the environments of those planets.

Riiiight.

>And Saturn cooling? We have no idea about the heat on Saturn's surface
>(if it has one).

And we have no idea about current upper atmospheric temperatures on Mars. Which means it's foolish to use the weather on either planet to "prove" that all those climate researchers are wrong.

[lawrocket 3]

Sorry, bill. Occasionally I get in an asshole kinda mood.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[speedy 0]

Quote

>And they can show that with any reduction in the amount of CO2 that the
>temperature drops?

Are you still referring to the actual, current forcings?

If so then the only way to demonstrate that is to reduce the amount of CO2 and observe the temperature. I would be willing to do that experiment, but I suspect you would not be.

Bill, I would certainly not want to try such an experiment. The results could be a disaster.

If we are going to try and cool the planet, we need be very sure of what we are doing.

I believe our top priority is to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels. We seem to be making progress, but at a painfully slow rate.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[billvon 3,116]

>Bill, I would certainly not want to try such an experiment. The results could
>be a disaster. If we are going to try and cool the planet, we need be very
>sure of what we are doing.

I agree! And if we are going to try and warm the planet, we also need to be very sure of what we are doing. What we do know for sure is that when we leave things alone, average temperatures tend to vary slowly (barring catastrophes like asteroid impacts) and the ecosystem has been able to adapt at those slower speeds.

>I believe our top priority is to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels.
>We seem to be making progress, but at a painfully slow rate.

That's a good top priority, although reducing ordinary pollution (mercury, SOx, NOx, particulates, cadmium, thorium etc) should remain near the top as well.

[speedy 0]

Quote

That's a good top priority, although reducing ordinary pollution (mercury, SOx, NOx, particulates, cadmium, thorium etc) should remain near the top as well.

Better get rid of those energy saving light bulbs then.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[billvon 3,116]

>Better get rid of those energy saving light bulbs then.

A CFL contains about 5mg of mercury (not a hazard if recycled, of course.) If 50% of your power comes from coal, using a CFL eliminates 7.4 mg of mercury from the air over the life of the bulb - and that is NOT recycled.

So if you want to reduce mercury in the air and the water, CFL's are the way to go (especially if you recycle em.)

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

That's a good top priority, although reducing ordinary pollution (mercury, SOx, NOx, particulates, cadmium, thorium etc) should remain near the top as well.

Better get rid of those energy saving light bulbs then.

I'm old enough to remember when mercury wasn't toxic, sex hadn't been invented, and the world was black and white.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That's a good top priority, although reducing ordinary pollution (mercury, SOx, NOx, particulates, cadmium, thorium etc) should remain near the top as well.

Better get rid of those energy saving light bulbs then.

I'm old enough to remember when mercury wasn't toxic, sex hadn't been invented, and the world was black and white.

Wait, I'm a bit confused...was that before dirt, or before rocks?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

One more time about your media and the climate

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

One more time about your media and the climate

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

That's a nice unbiased source... NOT.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

One more time about your media and the climate

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

That's a nice unbiased source... NOT.

Oddly enough, anything that goes against the consensus seem to be an "unbiased source" .... I wonder why that is?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

One more time about your media and the climate

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

That's a nice unbiased source... NOT.

Nice ignoring of the content yet again admitting you can not debunk it and will look at only sites YOU deem credible.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

One more time about your media and the climate

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

That's a nice unbiased source... NOT.

Oddly enough, anything that goes against the consensus seem to be an "unbiased source" .... I wonder why that is?

And the site only speaks tothe topics reported over the years and does not go into the debate of GWing so much. But they cant have ANYTHING reported against them cause (IMO) but the consensus cant be questioned we all know

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

That's a good top priority, although reducing ordinary pollution (mercury, SOx, NOx, particulates, cadmium, thorium etc) should remain near the top as well.

Better get rid of those energy saving light bulbs then.

I'm old enough to remember when mercury wasn't toxic, sex hadn't been invented, and the world was black and white.

Wait, I'm a bit confused...was that before dirt, or before rocks?

Well, kids played with mercury (you could even buy it in toy stores), and mercury was in thermometers they stuck in your mouth.

How much sex was on TV, in movies and documentaries before the 1960s? None. Now they are full of sex.

Old photos show very clearly that the world WAS black and white (sometimes "sepia" and white).

Of course, we just had rocks and dirt to play with. Good times, though!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Well, kids played with mercury (you could even buy it in toy stores), and mercury was in thermometers they stuck in your mouth.

I remember playing with mercury in a science set...and thermometers

Quote

How much sex was on TV, in movies and documentaries before the 1960s? None. Now they are full of sex.

Yup... and you didn't have to worry about sending the kids out to play, either!

Quote

Old photos show very clearly that the world WAS black and white (sometimes "sepia" and white).

Quote

Of course, we just had rocks and dirt to play with. Good times, though!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,116]

> One more time about your media . . .

They definitely fall in the "Rush's media" camp. I tend to ignore what the mainstream media says on issues of science, whereas there seems to be almost zero delay between something being posted on Newsmax.com and your reposting it.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

> One more time about your media . . .

They definitely fall in the "Rush's media" camp. I tend to ignore what the mainstream media says on issues of science, whereas there seems to be almost zero delay between something being posted on Newsmax.com and your reposting it.

Where did I find it bill? Where ????

Before you embarass yourself I could show the google search used

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>The Wegman report refutes that.

Another nail in the denialist coffin:
============================================
Climate study gets pulled after charges of plagiarism
By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY

Updated 5/15/2011 10:54 PM

Evidence of plagiarism and complaints about the peer-review process have led a statistics journal to retract a federally funded study that condemned scientific support for global warming.

The study, which appeared in 2008 in the journal Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, was headed by statistician Edward Wegman of George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. Its analysis was an outgrowth of a controversial congressional report that Wegman headed in 2006. The "Wegman Report" suggested climate scientists colluded in their studies and questioned whether global warming was real. The report has since become a touchstone among climate change naysayers.

The journal publisher's legal team "has decided to retract the study," said CSDA journal editor Stanley Azen of the University of Southern California, following complaints of plagiarism. A November review by three plagiarism experts of the 2006 congressional report for USA TODAY also concluded that portions contained text from Wikipedia and textbooks. The journal study, co-authored by Wegman student Yasmin Said, detailed part of the congressional report's analysis.

. . . .

Computer scientist Ted Kirkpatrick of Canada's Simon Fraser University, filed a complaint with the journal after reading the climate science website Deep Climate, which first noted plagiarism in the Wegman Report in 2009. "There is something beyond ironic about a study of the conduct of science having ethics problems," Kirkpatrick says.
=======================================