kallend 2,147
kallend 2,147
QuoteQuoteQuoteA decade of inaccuracy? What's the point of modeling if they cannot be trusted?
Let me explain in terms even a Republican can understand:
It is quite accurate to say that the Dow Jones has increased at a rate of 307 points per week since Obama was inaugurated.
Much like some people predicted that the Dow would reach 20,000 by 2010. For some periods, it was the trend.
Problem - the stock market does not necessarily follow the laws of physics. If CO2 was the power claimed, we'd have .2 degrees C increase in the last decade. We didn't.
There you go again. Predicting a long term trend is not the same as predicting tomorrow's weather, or next year's average temperature. You are too smart not to know this; the only conclusion is deliberate deception on your part.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteA decade of inaccuracy? What's the point of modeling if they cannot be trusted?
Let me explain in terms even a Republican can understand:
It is quite accurate to say that the Dow Jones has increased at a rate of 307 points per week since Obama was inaugurated.
Much like some people predicted that the Dow would reach 20,000 by 2010. For some periods, it was the trend.
Problem - the stock market does not necessarily follow the laws of physics. If CO2 was the power claimed, we'd have .2 degrees C increase in the last decade. We didn't.
There you go again. Predicting a long term trend is not the same as predicting tomorrow's weather, or next year's average temperature. You are too smart not to know this; the only conclusion is deliberate deception on your part.
Are you being obtuse deliberately?
Over and over he has explained it you to very well. His points are valid. You on the other hand, are so desperate to push the social changes you support using AWG you ignore points and data, which you have yet to address
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
kallend 2,147
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteA decade of inaccuracy? What's the point of modeling if they cannot be trusted?
Let me explain in terms even a Republican can understand:
It is quite accurate to say that the Dow Jones has increased at a rate of 307 points per week since Obama was inaugurated.
Much like some people predicted that the Dow would reach 20,000 by 2010. For some periods, it was the trend.
Problem - the stock market does not necessarily follow the laws of physics. If CO2 was the power claimed, we'd have .2 degrees C increase in the last decade. We didn't.
There you go again. Predicting a long term trend is not the same as predicting tomorrow's weather, or next year's average temperature. You are too smart not to know this; the only conclusion is deliberate deception on your part.
Are you being obtuse deliberately?
Over and over he has explained it you to very well. His points are valid.
No, he hasn't and his point is scientifically invalid. Sort of argument I expect from a lawyer, though.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
chuckakers 426
QuoteFrom the article, 1st paragraph. Too many links and supporting reviewed papers to link
This should heat up, ah, no, cool off the debate
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-ScientistQuoteIn a study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth’s Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for.
Google search of Dr Lindzen
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=Professor+Richard+Lindzen+&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images
You forgot to mention the report was peer reviewed too.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX
D-10855
Houston, TX
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteA decade of inaccuracy? What's the point of modeling if they cannot be trusted?
Let me explain in terms even a Republican can understand:
It is quite accurate to say that the Dow Jones has increased at a rate of 307 points per week since Obama was inaugurated.
Much like some people predicted that the Dow would reach 20,000 by 2010. For some periods, it was the trend.
Problem - the stock market does not necessarily follow the laws of physics. If CO2 was the power claimed, we'd have .2 degrees C increase in the last decade. We didn't.
There you go again. Predicting a long term trend is not the same as predicting tomorrow's weather, or next year's average temperature. You are too smart not to know this; the only conclusion is deliberate deception on your part.
Are you being obtuse deliberately?
Over and over he has explained it you to very well. His points are valid.
No, he hasn't and his point is scientifically invalid. Sort of argument I expect from a lawyer, though.
I am of the opinion you know much less about science than you claim too
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
And honest exchanges is not one of your strengths
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteStill waiting for your list of scientists who are paid for their opinions by Big AGW.
Still waiting for you to converse about the DATA.
Sshhh: grown ups are talking.
Yes, they are - so why do you keep interjecting into the conversation?
Clicky
QuoteMar. 5, 2001
Dr. Jim Hansen, Chief of the Goddard Space Flight Center's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, N.Y., and one of this year's recipients of a $250,000 Heinz Award, receives his award tonight at a ceremony at the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C.
The award, bestowed annually by the Heinz Family Foundation since 1993, honors the memory of Sen. John Heinz, R-Pa., who died in a plane crash in 1991. The award is given in recognition of people who enhance the lives of others.
In announcing this year's winners, the Heinz Award cited Dr. Hansen "for his exemplary leadership in the critical and often-contentious debate over the threat of global climate change. The theory that industrial pollution continues to create an atmospheric 'greenhouse effect' or warming has pitted scientist against scientist and politician against politician. "
Well, I guess you can quit using Hansen as a source....
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
If you look at a graph of temperatures over the last 10 years, you'll note that it jukes all over the place, just like the stock market. This is because there are factors that influence temperature on a day-to-day, week-to-week, and month-to-month basis that have stronger input than manmade CO2 (for example, a volcanic eruption). Because a lot of these factors are difficult/impossible to predict in the short-term, it's ludicrous to try and use a model designed to predict long-term temperature fluctuations to predict temperature change over the course of 10 years. The background noise is too high to pull anything meaningful out of that set of data.
And speaking of data, could somebody post a link to Lindzen's paper that y'all want debunked. Or do you just want kallend to debunk the interpretation of the paper that's offered on some right-wing website?
And speaking of data, could somebody post a link to Lindzen's paper that y'all want debunked. Or do you just want kallend to debunk the interpretation of the paper that's offered on some right-wing website?
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteStill waiting for your list of scientists who are paid for their opinions by Big AGW.
Still waiting for you to converse about the DATA.
Sshhh: grown ups are talking.
Yes, they are - so why do you keep interjecting into the conversation?
ClickyQuoteMar. 5, 2001
Dr. Jim Hansen, Chief of the Goddard Space Flight Center's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, N.Y., and one of this year's recipients of a $250,000 Heinz Award, receives his award tonight at a ceremony at the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C.
The award, bestowed annually by the Heinz Family Foundation since 1993, honors the memory of Sen. John Heinz, R-Pa., who died in a plane crash in 1991. The award is given in recognition of people who enhance the lives of others.
In announcing this year's winners, the Heinz Award cited Dr. Hansen "for his exemplary leadership in the critical and often-contentious debate over the threat of global climate change. The theory that industrial pollution continues to create an atmospheric 'greenhouse effect' or warming has pitted scientist against scientist and politician against politician. "
Well, I guess you can quit using Hansen as a source....
It doesnt matter when one debates someone who supports something that has become a dishonest religion.
The other part is Hansen does not have the credintials kallend says is needed to be credible. I guess those only matter on the denier side
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteFrom the article, 1st paragraph. Too many links and supporting reviewed papers to link
This should heat up, ah, no, cool off the debate
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-ScientistQuoteIn a study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth’s Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for.
Google search of Dr Lindzen
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=Professor+Richard+Lindzen+&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images
You forgot to mention the report was peer reviewed too.
you are correct but the link mentioned his multiple peer reviewed publishings. but it must have been a poor group of reviewers or maybe they are all paid deniers
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
kallend 2,147
QuoteIf you look at a graph of temperatures over the last 10 years, you'll note that it jukes all over the place, just like the stock market. This is because there are factors that influence temperature on a day-to-day, week-to-week, and month-to-month basis that have stronger input than manmade CO2 (for example, a volcanic eruption). Because a lot of these factors are difficult/impossible to predict in the short-term, it's ludicrous to try and use a model designed to predict long-term temperature fluctuations to predict temperature change over the course of 10 years. The background noise is too high to pull anything meaningful out of that set of data.
And speaking of data, could somebody post a link to Lindzen's paper that y'all want debunked. Or do you just want kallend to debunk the interpretation of the paper that's offered on some right-wing website?
Which is exactly the reason that reputable climatologists (unlike lawyers) typically use a 30 year period for climate analyis, and certainly NOT a 10 year period.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteIf you look at a graph of temperatures over the last 10 years, you'll note that it jukes all over the place, just like the stock market. This is because there are factors that influence temperature on a day-to-day, week-to-week, and month-to-month basis that have stronger input than manmade CO2 (for example, a volcanic eruption). Because a lot of these factors are difficult/impossible to predict in the short-term, it's ludicrous to try and use a model designed to predict long-term temperature fluctuations to predict temperature change over the course of 10 years. The background noise is too high to pull anything meaningful out of that set of data.
And speaking of data, could somebody post a link to Lindzen's paper that y'all want debunked. Or do you just want kallend to debunk the interpretation of the paper that's offered on some right-wing website?
Which is exactly the reason that reputable climatologists (unlike lawyers) typically use a 30 year period for climate analyis, and certainly NOT a 10 year period.
what about the time period Dr. Lindzen uses?
oh, sorry, cant use his data
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
QuoteIf you look at a graph of temperatures over the last 10 years, you'll note that it jukes all over the place, just like the stock market. This is because there are factors that influence temperature on a day-to-day, week-to-week, and month-to-month basis that have stronger input than manmade CO2 (for example, a volcanic eruption). Because a lot of these factors are difficult/impossible to predict in the short-term, it's ludicrous to try and use a model designed to predict long-term temperature fluctuations to predict temperature change over the course of 10 years. The background noise is too high to pull anything meaningful out of that set of data.
And speaking of data, could somebody post a link to Lindzen's paper that y'all want debunked. Or do you just want kallend to debunk the interpretation of the paper that's offered on some right-wing website?
Dude, just go the the first few posts of this thread. Pick the one YOU want to debunk. More information than you can use in a week to look at his work and conclusions
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Have you actually seen his data? If so, would you mind pointing us towards the site?
Sshhh: grown ups are talking.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites