Global temps continue to fall

[livendive 8]

brenthutch

Bill do yourself a favor and read the study, Kallend can help you with the math.

Regardless of how this study pans out under greater scrutiny, I found this to be a fun article comparing the skeptic approaches used in both the CFC and AGW debates.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 3,107]

It is interesting to note that even after several decades of data - including correlations with increasing CFC concentrations with ozone reduction, and correlations with plateaued (now decreasing) CFC concentrations and a cessation of ozone reduction, people are still denying the CFC-ozone connection. They did a good job.

[brenthutch 444]

Who are those people? Are the same "science deniers" that pushed the whole "CO2 causes global warming" meme?

[lawrocket 3]

livendive

***Bill do yourself a favor and read the study, Kallend can help you with the math.

Regardless of how this study pans out under greater scrutiny, I found this to be a fun article comparing the skeptic approaches used in both the CFC and AGW debates.

Blues,
Dave

I can cherry pick other examples of concensus that got blown away. Pangenesis, for example. The solid state universe is another one. How about Maxwellian electromagnetics?

Saying, "we've seen this before with CFCs" can also be countered with, "James Hansen and catastrophic warming is the modenr day Fred Hoyle and his solid state."

Dave - I think you'd find this interesting... [Url]http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0226458083/ref=redir_mdp_mobile[/url]

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[livendive 8]

The funny part is that the same groups of people used the same tactics on CFCs and CO2, but will now likely jump on the CFC bandwagon (already banned despite their loud protests, so they have nothing else to lose) in order to emit CO2 without restraint. Irony may not be the right word, but it's certainly close.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rushmc 23]

livendive

***Bill do yourself a favor and read the study, Kallend can help you with the math.

Regardless of how this study pans out under greater scrutiny, I found this to be a fun article comparing the skeptic approaches used in both the CFC and AGW debates.

Blues,
Dave

Oh

So you dismiss, offhandedly I might add, the info he posted and go off on your own rant

Sweet

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

[brenthutch 444]

livendive

The funny part is that the same groups of people used the same tactics on CFCs and CO2, but will now likely jump on the CFC bandwagon (already banned despite their loud protests, so they have nothing else to lose) in order to emit CO2 without restraint. Irony may not be the right word, but it's certainly close.

Blues,
Dave

...............................................



Confusion?

[livendive 8]

rushmc

******Bill do yourself a favor and read the study, Kallend can help you with the math.

Regardless of how this study pans out under greater scrutiny, I found this to be a fun article comparing the skeptic approaches used in both the CFC and AGW debates.

Blues,
Dave

Oh

So you dismiss, offhandedly I might add, the info he posted and go off on your own rant

Sweet

What part of "seems like a well researched argument" strikes you as dismissing it (offhandedly, you might add, though I'm not sure why you would)? Then again, the above also isn't a rant, so I guess I should just compliment you on your complete and utter reading fail and move on. .

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[brenthutch 444]

I don't feel dismissed. Dave has been reasonable on this thread. I am waiting for kallend to weigh in on the matter.

[ChrisD 0]

A trigger point is when certian conditions exsist, at this point the government moves in and does what it wants because the public peerception and climate have changed.

By climate I mean the public's mass viewpoint and its world view.

I am going to make a comparison to the rise of the National Socialists in Germany in the 1930s' I by no means support or am I advocating any view or political policy by doing this.

In 1930 give or take and certianly by 1938 many of Jewish Heritage were getting the message that it might be a good time to move. HOWEVER hundreds of thousands of individuals of Jewish faith, walked the streets during this period in gross denial, much of the retoric I see here on this forum and many other public forums use the same words, verbeage, and speaach as the Jewish populace that was in denial at the time. The trigger point is the time in history when the world realized what was happening and took , albit late, some action that they were unable to take prior to this time. The held public view had changed, nothing else had changed but how the issues and events were being view'd and percived.

Global warming is a very complex subject. It takes most researchers years of study, and at least a few semesters of chemistry, (yes the math is this important,) before you can fully understand the concepts involved.

That said it is impossible for "monkeys" to have a meaningfull conversation on this topic. It is literally beyound most peoples comprehension! Everyone is looking for that one little bit of proof, we call this the huristic fallicy. Everyone wants to understand something in five min or less, it's not going to happen.

Everyone wants to belive that they can understand this issue, Trust me you cannot.

So what happens is the world gets full of individuals that are all runnin around wanting proof, or the most and cheepest trick of all:

"You have to prove to me that this exsists, and untill I understand this, you haven't proven to me that: XXX YYY is true!!!"

I can't possibly teach you to the masters level why or how this global warming is taking place to the level that you demand I prove to you this phenomenon is takeing place.

The fact that you demand I prove to you something that you reserve the right to understand by holding the last card and placing the burden on me and making this issue the responsibility of my ability to teach a non-receptive public is a rhetorical trick that has been around since Sockraties!!!

This is being exploited by the very influention energy consortiums that control or media by their advertising dollar!

As you point out the issues and the cure are a very dirty word to the most powerfull industries in the world! This makes the "Seven Sisters" influence peddeling look like child's play.


The cheepist trick of all is this constant referencing to the idea that this issue needs more study and they whoever they are haven't "proven" this exsists.

In the 30s' we knew that cigaretts and smoking caused, and certianly were higly correlated with cancer...


The industry spent 30 years usingg this trick by lobbying congress that the AMA and concerened citizens were up a tree with their theroys and such. Meanwhile one of the most powerfull southern lobbies marched on in cogress and via media control via thier advertising dollar controlled an unwitting public to contune smoking because the alarmists want to control you! The cure was of course to stop smooking! The industry in the 60 - 70 s' responded by "light" ciggarets and chew being promoted at an alarming rate..


Because thier cash cow being eaten was the cure!!!!

Imagine the politicos fundraisers and their main source of income being suddenly shut down, imagine thousands of workers, if ya can call tham that, suddenly shut down and out of work because the cure was the elimination of the industry!!!

Trillinions of dollars in the pockets of southern gentry suddenly stopping!


MILLIONS DEAD OF CANCER V THE REYNOLDS COMPANY???

With 20 20 hindsight smoking causes cancer: AT an alarming rate of almost one to one!! You smoke, your getting cancer, period, non-debatable!


The energy companiys make the cigarett companies look like the local kids lemonaid stand!

C

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

[ChrisD 0]

brenthutch

Who are those people? Are the same "science deniers" that pushed the whole "CO2 causes global warming" meme?

Memes don't exsist.

Read my review on "Rumor Persistance..."

C

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

[rushmc 23]

Read my review on "Rumor Persistance..."

C

You need to


again

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

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I can't possibly teach you to the masters level why or how this global warming is taking place to the level that you demand I prove to you this phenomenon is takeing place.

First, I'm not demanding you prove anything. Science is about whether something can be falsified. In a practical sense, it means that theories are not proven so much as disproven. Hence, there isn't really proof that the first law of thermodynamics is true everywhere. We just haven't found a case where it doesn't work.

I brought up Kuhn earlier. Now I bring up Popper - science only advances when questions are asked and problems are pointed out. So if you say, "The water temperature will rise by 30 degrees if you put a lid on the pot" within 10 minutes, then I may say, "Hey - it's been 5 minutes and it's only gone up 2 degrees." And then after 10 minutes it's gone up 3 degrees. Is the theory wrong? Not necessarily. But there is something wrong with the maths or the understanding of the physics.

I also find Kuhn interesting because he understood people and egos. Kuhn pointed out that scientists will fight like hell to defend their paradigms against falsifiability. Hence even a Nobel Prize winner like Fred Hoyle, who scoffed at the primeval atom theory and mockingly called it the "Big Bang" went to his deathbed refusing to accept that measurement and observation falsified the "steady state" universe theory he championed.

So no. I don't demand proof unless it's a clear thing that no proof exists. I.e., I will ask for observational data to support a conclusion.

Point 2 - AGW theory can be fairly easily explained. The explanation that I have come up with is that you have have a pot of water, put it on a stove and have the heat set on low. You may have the temperature be kept at a steady 120 degrees that way, for example. That becomes the equilibrium.

Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is like putting a lid on the pot of water. It prevents the release of energy and thus the equlibrium temperature would increase by, say, 5 degrees. The concept itself is very simple and something that most anybody can understand.

Problem is, just about anybody can understand that just putting a lid on a pot doesn't mean it'll reach a boil. There is far more that goes into it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,107]

> The solid state universe is another one.

Do you mean "steady state universe?"

>How about Maxwellian electromagnetics?

Since the device you are working on right now relies on Maxwellian principles to operate I'd have to say they were not "blown away" (fortunately for you!) They were, however, altered slightly by the introduction of relativity. 99.9% of computer designers can use them as-is with no measurable error.

That's a good comparison to AGW. The climate will continue to warm as we add CO2. We will find out more and more about it, and that will slightly alter our understanding of anthropogenic warming.

[lawrocket 3]

I meant "steady state." I shouldn't have been messing around with my 200 watt Randall amp.

Quote

That's a good comparison to AGW

It's why I chose it. We will learn more because it isn't settled.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,107]

>We will learn more because it isn't settled.

Again, that's like saying Maxwell's Equations aren't "settled." They are, and basically every physicist on the planet agrees. (I am sure that there are some people who don't "believe" in them, but there are some people who will disagree with pretty much anything.)

Nevertheless, we will continue to learn more about electromagnetics - and about AGW.

[turtlespeed 226]

ChrisD

.
But hey!!! When you have time to take David Koch's dick out of your mouth, give me a call???

Wow.. Your argument was completely voided by just a few words. Nice Show mate.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[brenthutch 444]

Here's a problem: What will happen if too much of the Arctic ice cap melts? Answer: The North Atlantic Current will come to a halt due to excessive freshening of the sea water, and trust me, this is not a good thing. Some scientists believe it's taken a stumble or two lately, but no one is sure.

/Yea,what you said just like in the movie "the day after tomorrow"

I would also point to the recent increase in dynamic (see: 'destructive') weather as an indicator that things are not as they should be. Superstorm Sandy was a wake-up call, and Katrina the precursor. This situation shows no sign of improving, in fact it will probably get worse.

Must have gone to the billv/kallend school of science.


How much do humans affect the planet? I don't know. But I do know that population increase has gone crazy, and there will be severe repercussions because of it.

Again it must be true because it was in a movie!

[turtlespeed 226]

brenthutch

Here's a problem: What will happen if too much of the Arctic ice cap melts? Answer: The North Atlantic Current will come to a halt due to excessive freshening of the sea water, and trust me, this is not a good thing. Some scientists believe it's taken a stumble or two lately, but no one is sure.

/Yea,what you said just like in the movie "the day after tomorrow"

I would also point to the recent increase in dynamic (see: 'destructive') weather as an indicator that things are not as they should be. Superstorm Sandy was a wake-up call, and Katrina the precursor. This situation shows no sign of improving, in fact it will probably get worse.

Must have gone to the billv/kallend school of science.


How much do humans affect the planet? I don't know. But I do know that population increase has gone crazy, and there will be severe repercussions because of it.

Again it must be true because it was in a movie!

And its just the hurricanes that made landfall in the very recent past (last 10 years or so) that seem to hold any importance to anyone currently discussing the topic, while over 75 have made landfall between Texas and Maine since 1900.

Names and Landfalls

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I would also point to the recent increase in dynamic (see: 'destructive') weather as an indicator that things are not as they should be. Superstorm Sandy was a wake-up call, and Katrina the precursor. This situation shows no sign of improving, in fact it will probably get worse.

Gee. Why didn't you look at Hurricane Andrew as the wake up call? Or Camille? Hugo?

This is exactly the sort of stuff that I'm talking about. Rhetoric and attribution that not even legitimate climate scientists will say. BAsically, your statement is just as disagreeable to the "consensus" of climate scientists as some denier's statement. But - well, it's the alarmists who have the political bully pulpit.

Quote

Now we're adding another billion people about EVERY 14 YEARS. This type of growth will only lead to water shortages, more raping of the environment (especially in poorer areas), famine, war, and other nasty things.

So, who do you propose we exterminate? The blacks in Africa? The Indians? Pakis? How about the Arabs? Or do you want to go unique and take out white people? Poor ones or rich ones?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 444]

I'm still waiting for kallend to let us know how "think progress " has more credibility then the "international journal of modern physics"

[livendive 8]

Question - Lu states that the size of ozone hole, atmospheric ozone concentrations, and global temperatures both peaked in 2002 and have been decreasing since.

2005 was the second warmest year in the meteorological record, 2010 was first, and the trend is still continuing upward, albeit at a flatter rate than suggested by most IPCC models. These facts do not seem consistent with Lu's findings.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rushmc 23]

One of my hang ups with the belief in AGW is the fact that when the argument get toward the end, many (you included) seem to turn to the "well it cant be good pumping X amount of CO2 into the air. In other words, make take the debate away from data

On that note, please consider

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/03/climate-sensitivity-deconstructed/#more-87526

Quote

I haven’t commented much on my most recents posts, because of the usual reasons: a day job, and the unending lure of doing more research, my true passion. To be precise, recently I’ve been frying my synapses trying to twist my head around the implications of the finding that the global temperature forecasts of the climate models are mechanically and accurately predictable by a one-line equation. It’s a salutary warning: kids, don’t try climate science at home.

Quote

Three years ago, inspired by Lucia Liljegren’s ultra-simple climate model that she called “Lumpy”, and with the indispensable assistance of the math-fu of commenters Paul_K and Joe Born, I made what to me was a very surprising discovery. The GISSE climate model could be accurately replicated by a one-line equation. In other words, the global temperature output of the GISSE model is described almost exactly by a lagged linear transformation of the input to the models (the “forcings” in climatespeak, from the sun, volcanoes, CO2 and the like). The correlation between the actual GISSE model results and my emulation of those results is 0.98 … doesn’t get much better than that. Well, actually, you can do better than that, I found you can get 99+% correlation by noting that they’ve somehow decreased the effects of forcing due to volcanoes. But either way, it was to me a very surprising result. I never guessed that the output of the incredibly complex climate models would follow their inputs that slavishly.

Since then, Isaac Held has replicated the result using a third model, the CM2.1 climate model. I have gotten the CM2.1 forcings and data, and replicated his results. The same analysis has also been done on the GDFL model, with the same outcome. And I did the same analysis on the Forster data, which is an average of 19 model forcings and temperature outputs. That makes four individual models plus the average of 19 climate models, and all of the the results have been the same, so the surprising conclusion is inescapable—the climate model global average surface temperature results, individually or en masse, can be replicated with over 99% fidelity by a simple, one-line equation.

However, the result of my most recent “black box” type analysis of the climate models was even more surprising to me, and more far-reaching.

Here’s what happened. I built a spreadsheet, in order to make it simple to pull up various forcing and temperature datasets and calculate their properties. It uses “Solver” to iteratively select the values of tau (the time constant) and lambda (the sensitivity constant) to best fit the predicted outcome. After looking at a number of results, with widely varying sensitivities, I wondered what it was about the two datasets (model forcings, and model predicted temperatures) that determined the resulting sensitivity. I wondered if there were some simple relationship between the climate sensitivity, and the basic statistical properties of the two datasets (trends, standard deviations, ranges, and the like). I looked at the five forcing datasets that I have (GISSE, CCSM3, CM2.1, Forster, and Otto) along with the associated temperature results. To my total surprise, the correlation between the trend ratio (temperature dataset trend divided by forcing dataset trend) and the climate sensitivity (lambda) was 1.00. My jaw dropped. Perfect correlation? Say what?

and to be fair he includes this

Quote

Let me repeat the caveat that this is not talking about real world temperatures. This is another “black box” comparison of the model inputs (presumably sort-of-real-world “forcings” from the sun and volcanoes and aerosols and black carbon and the rest) and the model results. I’m trying to understand what the models do, not how they do it.

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

[livendive 8]

In reply to one thing, you complain about something copmpletely different, followed by "on that note" and something else completely different. What does the equation talk have to do with your dislike for people poinging out "pollution, AGW, and unrestrained consumption of finite resources are all bad"? And what does either one of those have to do with my observation that measured temperatures conflict with the findings of the paper brenthutch posted? (a paper I'm sure you dismiss)

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rushmc 23]

livendive

In reply to one thing, you complain about something copmpletely different, followed by "on that note" and something else completely different. What does the equation talk have to do with your dislike for people poinging out "pollution, AGW, and unrestrained consumption of finite resources are all bad"? And what does either one of those have to do with my observation that measured temperatures conflict with the findings of the paper brenthutch posted? (a paper I'm sure you dismiss)

Blues,
Dave

First off CO2 is not polution
Second off, the unrestrained use of finte resources (your words) is "I dont like it so I want to control your way of life" speak and means nothing

And third
You completed ignored the points in the link

Forth, you missed his point completely with the link

Even after he pointed out his attempted point you did not reply so the only dismissing going on here is being done by you

I tried

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