If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Popular Science)   Global warming alarmists change some assumptions in their computer models and claim global warming twice as great as before. With bonus spiffy color graphs   (popsci.com) divider line 523
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

11058 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 May 2009 at 7:20 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



523 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-05-26 11:37:42 PM  
Heh heh. Yeah, go to a .ORG and think for your self.
 
2009-05-26 11:39:14 PM  
Jon Snow 2009-05-26 11:27:35 PM
The IPCC synthesizes the primary refereed literature, genius. If you'd so much as glanced at one of its Assessment Reports you could have saved yourself some embarrassment. But as you've clearly demonstrated why no one should listen to a word you say about climate science, I'd like to thank you for that egregious FAIL.

Yes, lets pretend that the IPCC is anything other than a bunch of political hacks and claim it is primary lit. Your getting old and out of practice.
 
2009-05-26 11:41:43 PM  
Brockway: Down from 1998

But up from 1996.
i42.tinypic.com
Anomaly

i42.tinypic.com
Trend


It's almost as though you're cherry-picking an anchor point based on an outlier.

Nah...

20-30 years, Chuckles.
 
2009-05-26 11:42:18 PM  
Baryogenesis:
The glacier melts slowly and releases water gradually throughout the summer and then is replenished by rain/snow fall in the winter. If it all melts in short period then after the initial boost in water levels the river runs much drier.


This assumes precipitation over the glacier freeze area is at or near some sort of constant. Weren't most Alaskan glaciers pretty much dry valleys during the last ice age? I'll assume that it was cold enough in Alaska during the last ice age, but for some reason it was drier. All that ice on the continent prolly messed with rainfall patterns on the North American Pacific coast. Isn't precipitation the reason why some of the Alaskan glaciers are advancing a bit this year?
 
2009-05-26 11:42:44 PM  
Brockway Your facts are wasted on fools and fanatics.

Sometimes they get it when they grow up, but while young and anonymous...the earth is flat. Everyone agrees!
 
2009-05-26 11:42:54 PM  
thisisarepeat: The Bruce Dickinson, seriously? A glacier melted? I'm sure that never happened before we started using coal for fuel, unpossible.

Its just that these particular glaciers have been around for thousands of years and suddenly started melting 60-80 years ago. Its happening all around the world. Billions of cubic feet of ice disappearing just after the industrial revolution...coincidence, maybe not, but better safe than sorry when humanity is at stake.

Besides, what is the point of having scientists if we ignore them just because it's convenient?
 
2009-05-26 11:43:22 PM  
the funny thing is that EVERYONE KNOWS this stuff takes a while to take hold.

The planet isn't as simple as the minds of some people. notice how the shortest day of the year is only the BEGINNING of winter. so everyday of winter should be warmer than the last becuase there is more light. but instead we are paying for the energy loss in previous months.

I.e. by dec 21st it is already too late to make up for the fact that all those other days were getting shorter. in order to pull the northern hemisphere out of an ice age you have to lengthen the days every single day and only when you get to even can you call it the end of winter.

the point it that by the time you see real change it will be WAY too late.

it'd be like waking up DEC 30th and saying " wow, it was getting cold for a bit there, but luckily we've reversed all that days shortening stuff so picnic tomorrow!!!!"
 
2009-05-26 11:43:42 PM  
i just farted. we're screwed
 
2009-05-26 11:45:12 PM  
Baryogenesis: Wayfarer's Freedom: Pseudoscience would be a nice replacement term for global warming.

Ooooooh, bolded and a big font! You must be right!


Ooooooh, you got snarky with someone you disagree with. You MUST be right!
 
2009-05-26 11:46:01 PM  
Dr._Michael_Hfuhruhurr 2009-05-26 11:35:10 PM
baby_hewey:


From your link:

"Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Since 2001, our organization has provided companies with professional assistance in filing greenhouse gas (GHG) reports with the U.S. Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program (Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992). We hope that others of you will also turn to our Center for your GHG reporting needs. Together, we can help you prepare an accurate, complete, consistent, relevant and transparent accounting of your emission and sequestration activities.

You linked to an advertisement!


Well, they are trying to pay the bills. Would you rather get your information from a government hack group like the IPCC. I guess you could prefer a company who is controled buy big business or the government, but the guys on this site at least try to be independant.
 
2009-05-26 11:48:03 PM  
Jon Snow:
20-30 years


See, the thing is that you still didn't answer the question. What is the earliest year that is even theoretically possible to conclude from the data that a current cooling trend exists? If you allow for the 20 in your "20-30", then 20 years from now is clearly possible, hence 2029. Are you saying it is or is not possible prior to 2029?
 
2009-05-26 11:49:11 PM  
Flab: You'd lose your bet. Many of the people in this thread know exactly how they come to thses numbers. It depends on the datasets. Some datasets rely on ground-level thermometers, which are mentionend in your article. A quick google will explain how the data is gathered from them, and even how to account for the air conditioner's exhaust, as seen in a picture above in the thread. Other datasets rely on sea temperatures as provided by ocean liners. Yet others use satellite infrared readings.

Regardless of the methodology, all the data is analysed and corrected to remove anomalies (e.g. if the sea level is 70ft higher than it should be, we're reading the temperature of the pool deck of a cruise ship, so we'll discard that data bit).

Start with something that has links to sources, then Google the various data set names and read up a bit on how they came up with the data. It's not that hard. For example, I learned that last part about cruise ships while looking for source data for Brockway because the dataset he was using in another graph was missing 2009, so i had to hunt it down for him on a university's web site, and only found the raw uncorected data, with the explanations on how to look for errors.


I'll be looking in to this, it might become my pet argument for future "climate change" threads. I'm especially intrigued by the idea of the stations' changing number over time, as I'm doubtful they've been averaging the same stations since 1850.
 
2009-05-26 11:49:24 PM  
baby_hewey: Jon Snow 2009-05-26 11:27:35 PM
The IPCC synthesizes the primary refereed literature, genius. If you'd so much as glanced at one of its Assessment Reports you could have saved yourself some embarrassment. But as you've clearly demonstrated why no one should listen to a word you say about climate science, I'd like to thank you for that egregious FAIL.

Yes, lets pretend that the IPCC is anything other than a bunch of political hacks and claim it is primary lit. Your [sic] getting old and out of practice.


Try harder. Be smarter. Stop boring people.

baby_hewey: You need closer to 150 years to get a basic idea for the cycles of the climate, but to get really series about it you need a few 100 thousand years to see what is really happening.
Jon Snow: serial_crusher: But the same obviously doesn't hold true for your convenient 130 year slice.


CO2 and CH4 for 800kyr[1][2]


Try harder. Be smarter. Stop boring people.

baby_hewey: Of course with the Sun at an extreamly [sic] low solar minimum we will not be seeing an accurite [sic] representation of the trends of the last 20 years. Do you agree?

Even if we go into a solar minimum like the Maunder, the amount of lost radiative forcing is a mere 7 years of GHG emissions[3].

Try harder. Be smarter. Stop boring people.
 
2009-05-26 11:50:15 PM  
Dr._Michael_Hfuhruhurr: This has shait-all to do with science.

If you'd earned that honorific in front of your nick like some of us have you'd probably be aware of how completely farking stupid you sound biatching about the ozone layer.
 
2009-05-26 11:50:47 PM  
CujoQuarrel: No , you usually go the other way, at least where I am.

Lesser CujoQuarrel: CujoQuarrel: And to my mind if I was using Occams razor it would be to remove the unproven hypothisis that CO2 causes a green house effect on the earth

Has it been proven false? Hypothesis stand until proven wrong.

No , you usually go the other way, at least where I am. Some one comes up to me and says "I've got this hypothesis that we can do 'X' using 'Y'" . I'm going to say. Can you show some proof of that? You could make a hypothesis that can't be either proved or disproved.


Is your point a hypothesis must be falsifiable?

Because this conversation started with you asserting that something caused climate change before, many times, and it was that something and not humans causing the current climate change.
 
2009-05-26 11:51:38 PM  
"The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is "authored" by approximately 600 scientists. These "authors" are not, however - as is ordinarily the custom in science - permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy."

The very fact that Global Warming oh, Climate Change, Climate Disruption is an argument means that is not science.

It's part political. And, it's partially religion. But it is not science.


Link (new window)
 
2009-05-26 11:52:35 PM  
SVenus: Baryogenesis:
The glacier melts slowly and releases water gradually throughout the summer and then is replenished by rain/snow fall in the winter. If it all melts in short period then after the initial boost in water levels the river runs much drier.

This assumes precipitation over the glacier freeze area is at or near some sort of constant. Weren't most Alaskan glaciers pretty much dry valleys during the last ice age? I'll assume that it was cold enough in Alaska during the last ice age, but for some reason it was drier. All that ice on the continent prolly messed with rainfall patterns on the North American Pacific coast. Isn't precipitation the reason why some of the Alaskan glaciers are advancing a bit this year?


I'm not sure what old alaskan glaciers have to do with this. Many rivers are supported by mountain glaciers. I'm not making this stuff up. If glaciers in the Himalayan mountains were to melt away, rivers like the Ganges would lose a sizable chunk of their water volume. Even a seemingly small loss like 10-15% could spell disaster for a region that is already straining its water resources to the max.
 
2009-05-26 11:56:12 PM  
Zeppelininthesky: To all you global warming deniers:

Please give evidence that man made global warning is not happening.

I am talking *real* evidence. No crap about how Al Gore is the antichrist or carbon credits suck.

I want real scientific evidence that can be tested and falsified in a lab. I also would like to see any scientific papers that are published in a respectable scientific journal.

/not trolling


Well first you need to figure out what the actual argument is. Hint: it's not whether there has been warming, but to what degree is is natural, and to what degree is it man-made/caused.

So you need to pull your head out
 
2009-05-26 11:56:43 PM  
Brockway: Jon Snow:
20-30 years

See, the thing is that you still didn't answer the question. What is the earliest year that is even theoretically possible to conclude from the data that a current cooling trend exists? If you allow for the 20 in your "20-30", then 20 years from now is clearly possible, hence 2029. Are you saying it is or is not possible prior to 2029?


I think it's another eight (of "cooling") or so before you might say a warming trend isn't taking place.

So, pretty much by the end of the second Obama administration, you might have a case for political action based on the lack of accelerating warmth.
 
2009-05-26 11:57:02 PM  
shotglasss: Baryogenesis: Wayfarer's Freedom: Pseudoscience would be a nice replacement term for global warming.

Ooooooh, bolded and a big font! You must be right!

Ooooooh, you got snarky with someone you disagree with. You MUST be right!


Ooooooh, you got snarky with someone who got snarky with someone else. You MUST be funny!

/this could go on forever
//baseless accusations deserve only derision
///I'm okay with getting the same treatment for being snarky
 
2009-05-26 11:59:10 PM  
Baryogenesis: serial_crusher: How does a glacier provide fresh water to a river, without melting?

The glacier melts slowly and releases water gradually throughout the summer and then is replenished by rain/snow fall in the winter. If it all melts in short period then after the initial boost in water levels the river runs much drier. I'm probably doing a poor job of explaining it, but glaciers support many of the worlds most important rivers.


Yeah, but that requires the amount of precipitation in the winter to be greater than or equal to the amount melted off during the rest of the year. Is that ever actually the case?

My impression was that glaciers formed in ice-ages past, slowly melted during warmer years, bulk-replenished themselves in more ice ages, then continued melting.
So yeah, without another ice age, people who depend on glaciers might need to improvise.

And of course there's also the "this glacier only lost 1% of its volume in 2000, but 5% in 2008 (totally made up numbers for example only). The melting rate is increasing!" argument which seems to be made by people who don't quite grasp the whole surface area to volume thing. For comparison, I've tried to find the expected melting-rate over time of a block of ice under constant temperature, to see how much worse off we are. I can't find it and am too lazy to do all that math, but those glaciers would have melted either way.
 
2009-05-27 12:00:41 AM  
Baryogenesis: shotglasss: Baryogenesis: Wayfarer's Freedom: Pseudoscience would be a nice replacement term for global warming.

Ooooooh, bolded and a big font! You must be right!

Ooooooh, you got snarky with someone you disagree with. You MUST be right!

Ooooooh, you got snarky with someone who got snarky with someone else. You MUST be funny!


Ooooooh, chocolate cake!
 
2009-05-27 12:00:44 AM  
Brockway: you still didn't answer the question

Brockway: Jon Snow:
20-30 years


20-30 years is the minimum. If you weren't playing stupid or living that life, this would be considered asked and answered. When the sign and statistical significance of your alleged trend can be flipped by changing the date by 20 something months, you're not really dealing with robust phenomena.
 
2009-05-27 12:00:54 AM  
Meteorologist here, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

Actually I'm not. Everyone on both sides is completely idiotic.
People who say without a doubt its occurring and its our fault are idiotic. People who say without a doubt it isn't occurring are idiotic. People who say without a doubt it is occurring and its not our fault are idiotic.

All of you are idiots. Yay weather.
 
2009-05-27 12:01:14 AM  
Graeme Garden: Dr._Michael_Hfuhruhurr: This has shait-all to do with science.

If you'd earned that honorific in front of your nick like some of us have you'd probably be aware of how completely farking stupid you sound biatching about the ozone layer.


Deserved and appreciated.
 
2009-05-27 12:02:28 AM  
baby_hewey: Missed you in the last thread where I worked over chimp_ninja.

I'm happy to link to that thread and let readers draw their own conclusions.

olddinosaur: Anyone who still believes in global warming is advised to google Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher and one of the most distingiushed scientists in the world.

cache.gawker.com
 
2009-05-27 12:03:06 AM  
Dr._Michael_Hfuhruhurr: it is not science.

IPCC synthesizes the relevant primary literature. What part of that is hard for you to understand?

What part of your lie are you unwilling to admit:

The Dr._Michael_Hfuhruhurr: The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is a UN body (a political body) that does not adhere to peer review. It has nothing to do with science.
 
2009-05-27 12:05:02 AM  

CujoQuarrel: No , you usually go the other way, at least where I am.

Lesser CujoQuarrel: CujoQuarrel: And to my mind if I was using Occams razor it would be to remove the unproven hypothisis that CO2 causes a green house effect on the earth

Has it been proven false? Hypothesis stand until proven wrong.

No , you usually go the other way, at least where I am. Some one comes up to me and says "I've got this hypothesis that we can do 'X' using 'Y'" . I'm going to say. Can you show some proof of that? You could make a hypothesis that can't be either proved or disproved.

Is your point a hypothesis must be falsifiable?

Because this conversation started with you asserting that something caused climate change before, many times, and it was that something and not humans causing the current climate change.



Well, you got the hypothis that humans are using CO2 to change the global temperature. You have the known fact that in the past without humans the global temperature was much hotter and much colder that it is now for some reason. You claimed you would use Occams razor to elimiate the data we know to be true (the global temp does change for some reason) to use the unproven hypothis that humans are chainging the temperature. I think that sums it up doesn't it? You want the hypothis to be used ignoring that we know that the temp can change without those conditions being met (humans emitting CO2).

You stated that we must use the hypothis even though we cannot verify it (prove it to be true) because a hypothis is 'good till disproven'. You toss away the known facts that climate changes by itself. This makes no sense to me. I've got a proven (climate changes by itself) in one hand and a (humans might somehow be causing the change) in the other. I'm going to go with the first till there is some proof of the second.
 
2009-05-27 12:06:03 AM  
Baryogenesis: I'm not making this stuff up. If glaciers in the Himalayan mountains were to melt away

Good to know that's not happening.

May 5, 2009 -- Perched on the soaring Karakoram mountains in the Western Himalayas, a group of some 230 glaciers are bucking the global warming trend. They're growing.
[...]
An analysis of gravity signatures in the region also suggests the glaciers are growing in mass, and have been since at least 1980.
Discovery.com(new window)
 
2009-05-27 12:06:06 AM  
Jon Snow 2009-05-26 11:32:06 PM
baby_hewey
: Anyone interested in good information check out

http://www.co2science.org/

And think for your self.

Yes, please ignore the relevant primary literature and take the word of a fossil fuel industry front group[1][2].


Yea, so you have any proof other than a hack site that the link I provided is owned and controled by Exxon?

Yea, just because you don't like what they say you want to claim they are bias.

I think this quote is one that really bothers him:

"we cannot assume that in the absence of human intervention, earth's temperatures would have remained stable."

That comes from Wally Broecker, you know the guy who came up with the term Global Warming. chimp_ninja claimed I was lying about the quotes, but anyone can look them up. If you read Broecker's work in full you will find that he is consistant in his conclusions. Go figure.
 
2009-05-27 12:08:24 AM  
InfamousBLT: Meteorologist here, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

Actually I'm not. Everyone on both sides is completely idiotic.
People who say without a doubt its occurring and its our fault are idiotic. People who say without a doubt it isn't occurring are idiotic. People who say without a doubt it is occurring and its not our fault are idiotic.

All of you are idiots. Yay weather.


I'm in the Sun spot cycle/ cosmic ray flux/ cloud seeding group of deniers awaiting the CERN sky and cloud experiments. How big of an idiot am I?

/subby
 
2009-05-27 12:09:32 AM  
img529.imageshack.us


Hey, charts and technical analysis can also destroy the financial system.
 
2009-05-27 12:10:53 AM  

Meteorologist here, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

Actually I'm not. Everyone on both sides is completely idiotic.
People who say without a doubt its occurring and its our fault are idiotic. People who say without a doubt it isn't occurring are idiotic. People who say without a doubt it is occurring and its not our fault are idiotic.

All of you are idiots. Yay weather.


How about I'm not sure if it's getting warmer.
I'm not sure that if it is getting warmer it's humanitys fault.
I'm not sure that if it is getting warmer , and it is humanitys fault, it's something bad.
But I'm damn sure I don't want us destroying our civilization and giving up our freedoms till I'm damn sure we have too.
 
2009-05-27 12:11:17 AM  
InfamousBLT: Meteorologist here, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

Actually I'm not. Everyone on both sides is completely idiotic.
People who say without a doubt its occurring and its our fault are idiotic. People who say without a doubt it isn't occurring are idiotic. People who say without a doubt it is occurring and its not our fault are idiotic.


Yes, both sides are equally wrong. The ones citing relevant primary literature are just as wrong as the Climate Truthers invoking the most grandiose conspiracy theory on the face of the Earth. Because. Just because. Fake balance makes me objective, dammit!

All of you are idiots. Yay weather.

Way not understanding basic terminology. Climate != weather. Tell us again who is idiotic...
 
2009-05-27 12:12:13 AM  
baby_hewey: That comes from Wally Broecker, you know the guy who came up with the term Global Warming. chimp_ninja claimed I was lying about the quotes, but anyone can look them up. If you read Broecker's work in full you will find that he is consistant in his conclusions. Go figure.

Ambitwistor covered this nicely enough here. And here.

Curiously, you claimed that lengthy interviews with Broecker conducted within the last year or so aren't relevant to the question of the man's beliefs.
 
2009-05-27 12:13:00 AM  
SVenus: Baryogenesis: I'm not making this stuff up. If glaciers in the Himalayan mountains were to melt away

Good to know that's not happening.

May 5, 2009 -- Perched on the soaring Karakoram mountains in the Western Himalayas, a group of some 230 glaciers are bucking the global warming trend. They're growing.
[...]
An analysis of gravity signatures in the region also suggests the glaciers are growing in mass, and have been since at least 1980.
Discovery.com(new window)


Way to fail at reading comprehension.

this is the second paragraph in the article
"Throughout much of the Tibetan Plateau, high-altitude glaciers are dwindling in the face of rising temperatures. The situation is potentially dire for the hundreds of millions of people living in China, India and throughout southeast Asia who depend on the glaciers for their water supply."

And then the final sentences:
"But it's not likely to last. "As temperatures continue increasing, they will overtake additional mass provided by snow," Fountain said. "The freezing level will keep rising, and glaciers will melt.""

And if it wasn't clear, I was only asserting that I'm not making up the fact that glaciers support many rivers. I wasn't making any claim about climate change other than if it does get warmer then, obviously, the rivers supplied by glaciers are going to lose some of their water supply.
 
2009-05-27 12:17:27 AM  
Jon Snow 2009-05-26 11:49:24 PM
Even if we go into a solar minimum like the Maunder, the amount of lost radiative forcing is a mere 7 years of GHG emissions[3].

Try harder. Be smarter. Stop boring people.


So where did you get those numbers? They sound like you pulled them out of your arse. Not like you have ever done that before. Why don't you try a little harder and post some links so I have something to cut and paste from to show your a lying bowl of dicks?

Oh, yea, it's because you can't.

How about another quote from Broecker:

"we can state with some confidence that natural Holocene temperature fluctuations have been on the same scale as the human-caused effects estimated to result from greenhouse gases."

What does that say? To translate, the climate models reflect what we would expect from the natural cycles yet somehow we are to belive that all of the current warming trend is from man made green house gases. It know it is hard for you to accecpt, but you need to try harder to defend your faith.
 
2009-05-27 12:20:34 AM  
CujoQuarrel: CujoQuarrel:

Well, you got the hypothis that humans are using CO2 to change the global temperature. You have the known fact that in the past without humans the global temperature was much hotter and much colder that it is now for some reason. You claimed you would use Occams razor to elimiate the data we know to be true (the global temp does change for some reason) to use the unproven hypothis that humans are chainging the temperature. I think that sums it up doesn't it? You want the hypothis to be used ignoring that we know that the temp can change without those conditions being met (humans emitting CO2).

You stated that we must use the hypothis even though we cannot verify it (prove it to be true) because a hypothis is 'good till disproven'. You toss away the known facts that climate changes by itself. This makes no sense to me. I've got a proven (climate changes by itself) in one hand and a (humans might somehow be causing the change) in the other. I'm going to go with the first till there is some proof of the second.


All those times climate has changed in the past. How do you know it was always the same something?

/And either I have a hook in my mouth or you just went full Hegelian.
 
2009-05-27 12:21:04 AM  
Baryogenesis: I wasn't making any claim about climate change other than if it does get warmer then, obviously, the rivers supplied by glaciers are going to lose some of their water supply.

I understand. If it gets warmer, the ice gets all melty. If it gets real real cold, the ice doesn't melt at all. So, if it gets and stays real cold, there's ALSO little runoff, and no water for the growing population. Pedantic, but you get the point. However, precipitation patterns mean much more than does ice melt, at least for the next 30 years. The population increases in thirty years time will be straining the resources that exist today --
 
2009-05-27 12:24:00 AM  
baby_hewey: So where did you get those numbers? They sound like you pulled them out of your arse. Not like you have ever done that before. Why don't you try a little harder and post some links so I have something to cut and paste from to show your a lying bowl of dicks?

See, if you read his post, you'll notice that the little bracketed "3" is in fact a link which goes to a NASA article covering the relevant forcing magnitudes with citations to primary studies.

This is called "a footnote", and is not an uncommon way to direct readers to further information on a topic. People who read books often encounter them.

Hey, remember when you claimed that you were a working government scientist who couldn't make his real views known on climate because you would likely be banished to Antarctica? That was awesome.
 
2009-05-27 12:30:30 AM  
stirfrybry: I'm in the Sun spot cycle/ cosmic ray flux/ cloud seeding group of deniers awaiting the CERN sky and cloud experiments. How big of an idiot am I?

/subby


You're not necessarily an idiot at all. You might want to familiarize yourself with the current research and acknowledge that your position is ideological and not scientific, however[1][2][3][4].
 
2009-05-27 12:30:48 AM  
chimp_ninja 2009-05-27 12:12:13 AM
baby_hewey
: That comes from Wally Broecker, you know the guy who came up with the term Global Warming. chimp_ninja claimed I was lying about the quotes, but anyone can look them up. If you read Broecker's work in full you will find that he is consistant in his conclusions. Go figure.

Ambitwistor covered this nicely enough here. And here.

Curiously, you claimed that lengthy interviews with Broecker conducted within the last year or so aren't relevant to the question of the man's beliefs.


Good job, lie about what was said in a previous thread because you lost your ass. I never said it wasn't relivant, I said you cherry picked your quotes and used ones which were incomplete or included bracketed info which was not in the original. Keep trying, it seems that over the last year there are more people doubting than ever before. People are starting to see the reality.

That reality is that there is not enough information to prove either side. There is geologic data that shows the cycles. Any one that can read a graph can see which charts match up and if you understand the concept of the Global Warming vs. Pirates graph you realize that sometime things can corrolate but not mean anything.

Go figure.
 
2009-05-27 12:31:53 AM  
As an aside for people who are still wondering about a certain LOLZ-based troll: His tactics are well-summarized in these two articles:

Longer version: Don't Get Fooled, Again

Shorter version: 2008 Temperature Summaries and Spin
 
2009-05-27 12:32:01 AM  

CujoQuarrel: CujoQuarrel:

Well, you got the hypothis that humans are using CO2 to change the global temperature. You have the known fact that in the past without humans the global temperature was much hotter and much colder that it is now for some reason. You claimed you would use Occams razor to elimiate the data we know to be true (the global temp does change for some reason) to use the unproven hypothis that humans are chainging the temperature. I think that sums it up doesn't it? You want the hypothis to be used ignoring that we know that the temp can change without those conditions being met (humans emitting CO2).

You stated that we must use the hypothis even though we cannot verify it (prove it to be true) because a hypothis is 'good till disproven'. You toss away the known facts that climate changes by itself. This makes no sense to me. I've got a proven (climate changes by itself) in one hand and a (humans might somehow be causing the change) in the other. I'm going to go with the first till there is some proof of the second.

All those times climate has changed in the past. How do you know it was always the same something?

/And either I have a hook in my mouth or you just went full Hegelian.


Ok, i'll bite. Maybe there are lots and lots of reasons that the climate can change. Without humans being involved since we weren't there. So I'll put the 'lots and lots' in one hand that we know happend and the 'CO2' in the other and .........

I still gotta go with the 'whatever made it change before is making it change again'. Simplest explanation.

Personally I think it's something cosmic like the sun changing something.

And how did you get anything Hegelian out of that mess.
 
2009-05-27 12:37:53 AM  

As an aside for people who are still wondering about a certain LOLZ-based troll: His tactics are well-summarized in these two articles:

Longer version: Don't Get Fooled, Again

Shorter version: 2008 Temperature Summaries and Spin


Been meaning to ask this. Is there a way to put people on a twit list in this BBS system. If you'll notice I'm arguing for somewhat the same side as that bozo but he annoys the heck out of me. I've seen references in other posts about something like that but I don't see it on the interface.
 
2009-05-27 12:38:57 AM  
baby_hewey: Good job, lie about what was said in a previous thread because you lost your ass.

I posted direct links to the posts in question. I'm confident readers can draw their own conclusions.

If you want context of Brocker's beliefs, you can read this recent interview with Smithsonian, where he discusses why he thinks carbon capture technologies will be crucial to avoid severe climate change. The opening paragraph:
"Wallace Broecker, of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, first warned in the 1970s that the earth would warm because of a buildup of carbon dioxide and other gases released by burning fossil fuels. In his new book, Fixing Climate (co-authored by Robert Kunzig), Broecker, 76, argues that we must not only reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) but also remove it from the atmosphere on a massive scale to avert environmental ruin."

As an aside, the blue text above is kind of like a footnote.
 
2009-05-27 12:42:34 AM  
chimp_ninja 2009-05-27 12:24:00 AM
See, if you read his post, you'll notice that the little bracketed "3" is in fact a link which goes to a NASA article covering the relevant forcing magnitudes with citations to primary studies.

This is called "a footnote", and is not an uncommon way to direct readers to further information on a topic. People who read books often encounter them.

Hey, remember when you claimed that you were a working government scientist who couldn't make his real views known on climate because you would likely be banished to Antarctica? That was awesome.


Hehe, yep, and it looks like there are some other Fark readers in my office. I don't fark at work anymore, it hurts too. BTW, I read his footnote, it wasn't primary peer reviewed lit so I didn't accept it, are you saying it is ok to take in some info that does not come from peer reviewed primary sources?

Damn it chimp_ninja I wish you would right down the rules to this debate so I can compete on a even footing with you who make the rules.

Oh well bed time, some of us arn't on the left coast.
 
2009-05-27 12:43:33 AM  
CujoQuarrel: And how did you get anything Hegelian out of that mess.

Karl Popper fan (he wasn't one of Hegel).

And if you don't know who he is then I'd point you here (^) for how it relates back to the "valid hypothesis" discussion.
 
2009-05-27 12:43:47 AM  
CujoQuarrel: I still gotta go with the 'whatever made it change before is making it change again'. Simplest explanation.

The simplest explanation is not always correct.

Personally I think it's something cosmic like the sun changing something.

The thing is the sun has been changing a little bit over the last several decades-- it's just that the trends in solar irradiance, cosmic ray flux, sunspot numbers, etc. are all in the opposite direction (and entirely wrong periodicity) of the temperature trend. Read Lockwood and Frohlich's 2007 article on the topic (PDF), at least through Figure 1.

You're writing as if no one has been measuring these phenomena-- irradiance (etc.) is relatively trivial to track with satellites.
 
2009-05-27 12:50:26 AM  
chimp_ninja 2009-05-27 12:38:57 AM
I posted direct links to the posts in question. I'm confident readers can draw their own conclusions.

If you want context of Brocker's beliefs, you can read this recent interview with Smithsonian, where he discusses why he thinks carbon capture technologies will be crucial to avoid severe climate change. The opening paragraph:

"Wallace Broecker, of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, first warned in the 1970s that the earth would warm because of a buildup of carbon dioxide and other gases released by burning fossil fuels. In his new book, Fixing Climate (co-authored by Robert Kunzig), Broecker, 76, argues that we must not only reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) but also remove it from the atmosphere on a massive scale to avert environmental ruin."

As an aside, the blue text above is kind of like a footnote.


So, and artical about Wally Broeckers opinions should be treated like facts from peer reviewed research? I'm sorry, but why should I take an opinion piece over what is in his peer reviewed works?

As I have said in a previous thread, I belive that humans need to move to a carbon neutral life style, but I do not belive that this change needs to be done on a political time line.

Make of it what you will, but the cold hard facts do not support AGW any more than this thread will cause you or JonSnow to change your govenment sponsered position. Or are you just a faithful follower of the AGW religion of one world government?
 
Displayed 50 of 523 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report