Global Waming "Evidence"?

[wacki]

Guys, frankly, we've got a microscopic data set that folks are trying to extrapolate from.
 
100 years is an eyeblink.

Give that man a cigar & the carbon credits to smoke it!

add about 4 more zeros on his statistic for a cool million years.  Even if his statement was true Newtonian physics doesn't operate by chance.  The type of date is far more important than the size of the sample set.

[richyoung]

wacki, I think you're wasting your time. Those posting endless links to 'authorities' ...

Roy Spencer, Russian Academy of Science,

Roy Spencer doesn't believe in evolution.  He also claims there is a "near total absense (sic) of transitional forms of life in the fossil record."
http://www.ecoenquirer.com/flying-whale.htm

Both of which are true statements.  Neither of which have anything to do with his credentials for generating and interpreting satellite measurments - for which he LITERALLY wrote the book.  If there is anything to know about satellite IR, he knows it...and he says Global Warming is bunk.

[richyoung]

While I think you overstate the issue, I'll admit you brought to light something I didn't know about Peser - so let place in his stead:

I'm overstating the issue?  Did you even read Peisers 34 abstracts?  Are you aware that he slandered the scientific community?

Technically, I don;t think you COULD "slander" th eglobal warming cheerleaders: what they do is NOT science, but rather a naked power grab wrapped in chicken-littleism.  When confronted with the very real fact that there is NOT enough good data to even indicate unusual warming, much less man causing it, they retreat to problematic ice core data, which can pretty much be manipulated to say whatever you want.  Four irrefutable facts PROVE that the GW crowd is wrong:

1.  Previous ice ages ended without anthropogenic CO2 output - proving that natural variation can account for ALL of the change we have obsovered in our microscopic maount of data.
2.  CO2, as shown by the ice core data the GWs want to use, is historically a TRAILING, rather than a LEADING indicator of warming.
3.  No current model of climate accurately accounts for the effect of water vapor - the problem with that is that water vapor, in both direct and indirect effects accounts for by far the majority of greenhouse effect - up to 93% of it.  Not modeling it pretty much makes the computer models a non-starter.  Not only do they NOT model it - they CAN'T.  The nature of the effects, which can be both positive and negative feedback, are not clearly known.
4.  Earth's climate is not prone to thermal runaway.  If it was, it would not have life.  Mars and Venus ARE prone to thermal runaway, & BTW, Mar's polar ice caps are melting - blame THAT on my SUV!

Here is an abstract which he says disagrees with and disproves the consensus on climate change:

...and you are somehow unaware that one of the arguments against GW is biomass sequestration of CO2?

[wacki]

Both of which are true statements.

So you don't believe in evolution?  So you believe the fossils in the natural museum of history are fake?

Neither of which have anything to do with his credentials for generating and interpreting satellite measurments - for which he LITERALLY wrote the book.

And Karry Mullis wrote the book on PCR and won a noble prize.  He testified on behalf of OJ Simpson, claims HIV doesn't cause aids, says both the ozone and global warming are bunk, and talks to glowing racoons.

He has even better credentials than roy spencer.  Are you going to believe him too?  I mean he wrote the book on DNA so if he says OJ is innocent then surely OJ is innocent right?  Credentials are not everything. There are a lot of scientists on the planet and some of them go crazy.  This is why peer review and assessment reports are so important.

If there is anything to know about satellite IR, he knows it...and he says Global Warming is bunk.

So are you implying satellite data says global warming is bunk?  Please show me the data.  Not even Richard Lindzen is dumb/crazy enough to say that.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170

Cliff notes: some satellites were falling in altitude and gave false readings.

[wacki]

Four irrefutable facts PROVE that the GW crowd is wrong:

Irrefutable?  We will see about that.

2.  CO2, as shown by the ice core data the GWs want to use, is historically a TRAILING, rather than a LEADING indicator of warming.

Please read the first link on this google search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=coby+beck+lead+not+lag&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

There are some very obvious flaws to that argument.  We are warming up right now and the frozen tundra/permafrost is melting and releasing methane.  Since we were warming up before the methane was released does that prove methane isn't a greenhouse gas?  Of course not.  You should find a different source of news as the one you are using is incompetent.  The major 'switches' in the ice cores were caused by Milankovich, DO events (changes in ocean currents), etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovich_Effect
http://amper.ped.muni.cz/gw/articles/html.format/orb_forc.html

None of this belittles the *feedback* effects of CO2.  Natural CO2 is a feedback.  Human CO2 can be considered forcing while the melting of the permafrost is a feedback of human activity.  Get it?

Mars and Venus ARE prone to thermal runaway, & BTW, Mar's polar ice caps are melting - blame THAT on my SUV!

Are you aware that planets wobble?  You can find dozens of papers that say the melting observed on 1 polar cap is due to topographic forcing.  Please show me 1 *peer-review* article that shows there is a global trend in temp increase.  Good luck finding one.

...and you are somehow unaware that one of the arguments against GW is biomass sequestration of CO2?

That is an argument that says we can fix AGW not that the science behind AGW is bunk.  The difference should be obvious and you appear to be trolling.

more later.... have to go downtown.

[Bogie]

Excuse me, but we have fairly reliable temperature DATA for about 100 years.
 
Going beyond that, we have extrapolations and GUESSES.

Looking at written materials, it's been warmer, and it's been colder. Dryer and rainier.
 
The "environmentalist" crowd is also completely ignoring any heating from the sun. You'd think they'd look up occasionally.
 
The "environmental movement" is basically a religion, composed of people who, for the most part, do not understand science, and who flat-out HATE business, industry, or anyone who can afford to drive a car. You see, it's kinda hard to earn a living and establish a credit rating if all you do is hang out in the student center and then go to live in a yurt, smoke dope, and make tie-dyes (which is actually more work than one would imagine...).
 

[Iain]

The "environmentalist" crowd is also completely ignoring any heating from the sun. You'd think they'd look up occasionally.

You'd think you might go back and read this thread properly. Or just go and do some proper reading of your own elsewhere. Same old arguments, been at least addressed with some proper scientific rigour out there in the world of science, and yet around they come again.

Are you sure you understand the science any better than those 'religionists' (not a notion I'd entirely disagree with you on, except that I'd say that there's quite a bit of dogma going around) that you accuse of not understanding it?

[m1911owner]

I must agree that it is difficult to imagine a "proxy" for global temperatures that accurately registers changes of less than one degree over the course of a few years to half a century.

For one thing, there is nowhere that experiences the global average; the only thing anyplace experiences is its own local weather.

And for another thing, it is danged difficult to intenionally make a simple sensor that accurately measures with an accuracy of better than 1 degree F.  I know--I've looked at thermistor and semiconductor sensors, and none of them have that level of accuracy.  It buggers the imagination to think that some natural phenomenon is recording global temperatures with the accuracy that is attributed to these studies.

Thus, I will include myself among those who are inclined to think that ice core data and the like is read with a great deal of religious-based fudging.

[Sindawe]

And for another thing, it is danged difficult to intenionally make a simple sensor that accurately measures with an accuracy of better than 1 degree F.  I know--I've looked at thermistor and semiconductor sensors, and none of them have that level of accuracy.

  What?  I hope thats a typo.  I demand and get better accuracy and resolution on the cheape instruments I use on my aquarium.  When I worked in Biotech we used instruments from these guys: http://www.gecinstruments.com/  Production used the thermocouple ones, Metrololgy used the thermistor ones to verify that the thermocouple instruments were on spec.  Their instruments had to be NIST verified.

[Bogie]

Meterologists are ecstatic to have "news." They spend most of their lives going "hey, we guess that tomorrow is gonna be kinda like today, or it may rain."
 
One thing I've noticed is that each side seems to have its own data. And works like hell to debunk the other side's.
 
That dog don't hunt, at least not in a modern research environment. I think that what we have are a buncha folks who are looking for some serious grant money, so that they can spend the next 20-30 years studying... And the "environmentalists" who desperately want to hurt "big business" (and with some of these clowns, some guy who truck farms 10-15 acres is a "big business"), are in support.
 
Follow the money, folks... Follow the money...
 

[richyoung]

Both of which are true statements.

So you don't believe in evolution?  So you believe the fossils in the natural museum of history are fake?

One does not imply the other.  As I typed before I have reservations about evolution as a cause of speciation - nor am I the only one.  As to the nature of the fossils, I have no reason to beleive they are anything but genuine - where, pray tell, are the transitional forms?

Neither of which have anything to do with his credentials for generating and interpreting satellite measurments - for which he LITERALLY wrote the book.

And Karry Mullis wrote the book on PCR and won a noble prize.  He testified on behalf of OJ Simpson, claims HIV doesn't cause aids, says both the ozone and global warming are bunk, and talks to glowing racoons.

Regardless WHAT glowing animals he speaks to, he is 100% correct about global warming and the ozone hole.

He has even better credentials than roy spencer.  Are you going to believe him too?  I mean he wrote the book on DNA so if he says OJ is innocent then surely OJ is innocent right?  Credentials are not everything. There are a lot of scientists on the planet and some of them go crazy.  This is why peer review and assessment reports are so important.

If you think politics and fads have NO EFFECT on publishing and peer review, I have some low tide land in Florida I'd like to sell you....

If there is anything to know about satellite IR, he knows it...and he says Global Warming is bunk.

So are you implying satellite data says global warming is bunk?  Please show me the data.  Not even Richard Lindzen is dumb/crazy enough to say that.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170

Cliff notes: some satellites were falling in altitude and gave false readings.

[/quote]

Cliff notes to your cliff notes:  the "correction": for the false readings was vastly overstated according to...  Spencer, who is the man who took the readings in the first place.

from da man hisseff:

"Since we (UAH) had already been working on a new diurnal adjustment technique, based upon the newer and more powerful AMSUs that have been flying since 1998, we rushed our new method to completion recently, and implemented new corrections. As a result, the UAH global temperature trends for the period 1979 to the present have increased from +0.09 to +0.12 deg. C/decade -- still below the RSS estimate of +0.19 deg. C/decade.

...

I only hope that the appearance of these three papers together, with considerable overlapping of authorship, does not represent an attempt to make measurements fit theoretical models. For when this happens, actual measurements can no longer fulfill their critical role in independent validation of climate models. Ideally, measurements would be analyzed with no knowledge of what any given theory predicts they should be."
"

from:http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=312

[Bogie]

Tell ya what... put your belief system where your metabolism is...
 
If you don't think that organisms mutate, refuse to accept any antibiotic developed past 1960.
 
Global Warming is iffy science distributed as soundbites by people fishing for grant money, and accepted with open arms by people who hate anything developed since 1800 (except, well, except for better living through chemistry...). The same people who expound such concepts as "suicide to save the planet," and the like...
 

 

[richyoung]

Tell ya what... put your belief system where your metabolism is...
 
If you don't think that organisms mutate, refuse to accept any antibiotic developed past 1960.

A mutated bacteria is still a bacteria - it is not an aomeba, paramecium, virus, spotted owl, tyranosaurus, etc.  Hopefully, intelligent design research will one day determine how many millions of years it should take to get to "here" from "there" - it will be interesting to see how that compares to the calculated age of the planet.
 

Global Warming is iffy science distributed as soundbites by people fishing for grant money, and accepted with open arms by people who hate anything developed since 1800 (except, well, except for better living through chemistry...). The same people who expound such concepts as "suicide to save the planet," and the like...

...no argument from me on that...

[mountainclmbr]

And now it seems that Al Gore has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on Global Socialism....er....Global Warming. 

[JonnyB]

Re: Al Gore & the Nobel Peace Prize...

I related to a (far-left global warming disciple) co-worker that Al is in good company with Yassar Arafat. The latter knew as much about peace as the former does about science!

JB

[Matthew Carberry]

It's a bit of a stretch to say that a cheese sandwhich can be nominated for a Nobel, but, as far as accolades go, the process infers no particular merit.  Someone just has to choose to put your name up.

[Iapetus]

At the genetic level, the theory of evolution is equivalent to the idea that we can put a bunch of Timex parts in a paint can, clamp it into a paint shaker, and if we run it LONG enough, a Rolex will be inside when we turn it off.

I know this is going off topic somewhat, but since it has been brought up, that is not what the theory of evolution says.

Evolution is not a sequence of entirely random changes that turn one type of organism into an entirely different organism.

Evolution is a series of random changes that are continually filtered by natural selection ("does this work?") which results in changes to a species or selection of a species.

If the species (or selection of it) is sufficiently isolated, and subject to sufficient pressure, then it will eventually change into something that is sufficiently different from its "cousins" that it can no longer interbreed with them.  You then have one or more new species, which are similar to their ancestors, but not the same as them.

The process continues, with environment, predation, competition etc continually "filtering" the changes, so that what works better than the previous version endures.

Eventually, the cumulative changes mean you end up with creatures very different from their distant ancestors.  You do not go from a frog to a rat, but from a thing rather like a frog to another thing rather like a frog, to something more or less like a frog but vaguely rat-like (or at least vaguely mammalian), ... to something nothing like a frog but still not very much like a rat... to something almost like a rat, to a rat.

[Ron]

You do not go from a frog to a rat, but from a thing rather like a frog to another thing rather like a frog, to something more or less like a frog but vaguely rat-like (or at least vaguely mammalian), ... to something nothing like a frog but still not very much like a rat... to something almost like a rat, to a rat.

True enough.

The problem probably arises due to the astonishing lack of intermediate step life forms in between the species we observe.

I'm sure one of local materialists will come along with some obscure "critter" that science has called an intermediate specie.

[Matthew Carberry]

But that goes in the ID thread.