Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(BBC)   Before global warming, my fish was THIS BIG   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 178
    More: Unlikely, marine ecosystem, body temperatures, metabolic rates, haddock, Bottom of the Ocean, University of Aberdeen, greenhouse gas emissions, global warming  
•       •       •

3543 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 Sep 2012 at 10:43 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



178 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-02 11:20:59 AM  
common sense is an oxymoron:

2. What does it mean when the factor you hypothesize as a cause of another FOLLOWS that factor?
2. It means you're misinterpreting the data.

Really? So, if I claim that when it warms up in the morning, that warming causes the sun to come up, I'm right, and you're misinterpreting the data? Seriously? You're a friggin' idiot.

3. What does it mean when the predictions of your models fall outside the error bars by a factor > 3?
3. It means you're misinterpreting the error bars.

"This derived error bar only addressed the error due to incomplete spatial coverage of measurements. As there are other potential sources of error, such as urban warming near meteorological stations, etc., many other methods have been used to verify the approximate magnitude of inferred global warming."

Oh, really? Error bars mean nothing, then? Well, if THAT is true, the goddam models should not be used to set policy that costs people TRILLIONS of dollars, should they? And if the models are that frigging inaccurate, such that three times their error bars is close enough, then actual science would NEVER use their pointless output, and should rely on observations, should it? Congratulations -- you just found ANOTHER way to shoot down this whole global warming crap.


4. Under what circumstances is it scientifically valid to alter the data to fit your hypothesis?
5. Should chief researchers be scientists in the field under study?
6. Should chief researchers have large amounts of income dependent upon the research reaching specific conclusions?


4, 5, 6. Climategate is a myth.

So, you're fine with making up data, having a railroad engineer head up the world-wide, allegedly authoritative body on climate, and also with that railroad engineer having a company that makes money dealing with the problems the body he heads "finds," but only IF it finds them?

And, incidentally, Climategate was real. It was in all the papers. So, you're going with simple denial, eh? Weak sauce.



7. Under what, if any, circumstances is it proper for peer-reviewed literature to be reviewed by the author himself?
7. When did this happen?

Oh, an incident for which the jackasses at the skepticalscience blog don't have a denial? Or did you just not find it? Did I need a specific title for you to find it on their blog? Well, whatever.

Article HERE.
 
2012-10-02 11:43:39 AM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
The weather, and by extension the climate, are complex, mathematically chaotic systems. That's why attempting to claim that ONE factor controls the temperature is simplification to the point of being a simpleton. That's why I DON'T make such claims.

Nice strawman, because neither do I. If you would bother to actually read my posts and look at the graphs, you would realize that I agree, 100%, that solar activity has a direct effect on global mean temperature. It's just that, at the present time, the ongoing change in CO2 concentration is having an even greater effect.

First, the "it's all the carbon dioxide" claim may not be YOUR claim, but it IS the claim of the morons who want to reduce our carbon emissions to the level they were at around the time of the Civil War. As disappointing as it may be, it's not all about you.

So, what you are saying here is that, although carbon dioxide has had essentially bugger all to do with controlling Earth's temperature in the past, NOW it is important. Do you mind explaining which law or laws of physics you think have changed? This is a novel argument, I have to admit, and I'd like to explore it. It's bound to be friggin' hilarious.
 
2012-10-02 11:48:11 AM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
And if you understand chaos theory, then you should be able to comprehend the effects of perturbations and the idea of the tipping point. Humans have boosted the CO2 content of the atmosphere by 40%. Ask any farmer whether the weather has, in recent years, become more versus less predictable. At some point (and where that point might be is impossible to predict), if we push the atmospheric parameters hard enough and quickly enough, the climate is going to tip over.

"Tipping point" in relation to carbon dioxide levels is bollocks, plain and simple. If carbon dioxide could do that, don't you think it WOULD have when carbon dioxide levels were twenty times what they are now? The fact that we exist proves that such things have not happened, and CANNOT happen.

Or, are you suggesting that this mythical "tipping point" is a point somewhere above twenty times our current levels? I suppose that has not yet been falsified.... but, if this is your claim, STFU until we get, say, halfway there. Which should be never.
 
2012-10-02 11:57:11 AM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
One of the problems with the warmer alarmist camp is that, at the very beginning of all this alarmism, it was James Hansen's model which predicted an upcoming ice age, because temperatures in the early 1970s had been cooling for decades. A few years later, when temperatures started to rise, Hansen's models started predicting global conflagration, or whatever this weeks catchphrase is. Apparently, he hasn't noticed that there are climate cycles which are very long compared to human sensibilities. The first couple times, he missed the 60-year cycle, which is reasonably inexcusable, since is is so large, and so regular. Maybe he should have consulted a weatherman...

Maybe you should have consulted Google. The model used in those predictions was Hansen's model for the effects of aerosols in the atmosphere of Venus, and Hansen himself had nothing to do with the adaptation of that model for conditions on Earth.

Funny you should mention Venus... True story: That's exactly what Miskolczi says: the basic (thought) model for our CGMs comes from this Venusian model of Hansen's, and that model is utterly inapplicable to the Earth, since we do NOT have an atmosphere composed almost entirely (>95%) of carbon dioxide. The assumptions valid for Venus don't work here, and, shock of shocks, vastly overestimate the effects of carbon dioxide. </csb>
 
2012-10-02 12:02:28 PM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
Cool. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation has a 60-year cycle. Now show me where that 60-year cycle shows up anywhere in the global mean temperature record.

I'll wait...

Sure, sure, then I'll prove that the Sun warms the Earth. Jesus, how dim ARE you?

clivebest.com
 
2012-10-02 12:10:06 PM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
Don't look at me. You're the one who pointed out that we're "a crowd of nearly hairless apes who let their numbers get too large" Overpopulation? Sounds pretty greenie-weenie to me.

Uh, how about "no?" It's not a "greenie" issue, even if they say it. There is a limit to how many of a predator (or any other) species can be contained in a finite environment. We're over seven billion now, and continue to multiply. That WILL change -- either by stopping our growth, having it stopped for us, or by escaping this limited environment. But there is no way population can continue to grow forever on Earth.

So, what's the deal? Are you just oppositional? Are you suggesting that we CAN continue to multiply forever while stuck on Earth?
 
2012-10-02 12:15:20 PM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
So at the same time you're begging for someone to answer your questions (which I have--see above) or debate your links, you admit that someone has already done so. And, since you've once again resorted to name-calling rather than intelligent discourse, It's easy to guess how your arguments fared.

You call that answering the questions? No wonder you couldn't get your GED.

Hey, it's not MY fault one of our resident shill scienticians doesn't get the point of including a paper that shows that, even within the confines of using only model output for predictions, the IPCC exaggerated the warming significantly. Frankly, I expected better. There is, apparently, a limit to even HIS "When denier says.. you say" list. But, you really should get his source. It is considerably better than the one on the skepticalscience blog that you use.
 
2012-10-02 12:45:39 PM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
Yes, discredited shills. Posting their screeds ad infinitum won't change the optical properties of the atmosphere, nor will it make cosmic rays suddenly start producing condensation nuclei (without which there are no clouds regardless of how many cosmic rays there are).

And, once again, regardless of how many times you ignore the facts, Climategate is just another discredited hoax.

You see? You fling around "discredited shill" in EXACT correspondence to scientists who have falsified the AGW hypothesis. This "my team is scientists, your team is shills" crap is proof that you are working in a POLITICAL frame, rather than a scientific one. That idea that you have is what kept the dark ages going, and science is what ended them. Get with the program.

The only discredited shill in this process is Michael Mann. Even an ignoramus, like yourself, for example, can prove his fraud. And, his fraud has been proven, even if his university (the same one that let Sandusky molest kids for decades, saying nothing was wrong) finds him innocent without interviewing anyone critical of him. His "hockey stick" was PROVEN to be fraudulent, producing a "hockey stick" graph even with an input of red noise. And, Phil Jones has ADMITTED that the attempt to deny the medieval warm period was fraudulent. Your idea of "debunking" involves the use of political power to silence critics. Scientists know better.

And, I LOVE your attempted takedown of Svensmark. It's just one more denial of the science involved. Are you aware that recently CERN proved Svensmark's hypothesis experimentally? It so thoroughly blows a hole in AGW that CERN, being a government-funded institution, forbid its scientists to make any conclusions, or even TALK about the implications of their research on climate science.

Read about it HERE. Read about suppression of discussion HERE.

Forbidding scientists to discuss the public, non-classified, non-weapons-related research is a first for that organization. Because, my ignorant associate, that is EXACTLY what cosmic rays in the lower troposphere DO... they generate nuclei upon which clouds may form. So, cosmic rays increase clouds, which increase Earth's albedo, which lowers the temperature. And, since solar MAGNETIC activity cuts off cosmic rays, the more active the sun is magnetically, the warmer the planet gets. This adds to the insolation increase, and is an amplifier of insolation.

Solar output (insolation) is the greatest determiner of planetary temperature, followed by cloud cover. And now we know that cloud cover is also affected by cosmic rays modulated by solar activity, That is WHY planetary temperature tracks so closely with solar activity, and so poorly with carbon dioxide.

It is wrong to make science a team sport, but, if you insist, your team just lost... again. They're like 0-30. Loser.
 
2012-10-02 12:59:17 PM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
First: I was responding to your hypothetical question regarding the significance of a correlation coefficient (or factor; I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one) of "30." You made no mention of temperature, CO2, or any other specific factor. I gave you an answer, namely, that (assuming that "30" means 0.3) it would show a positive correlation. If no other factors showed a greater correlation, then that would be the most important single factor, although not necessarily the dominant one over all time scales. I then gave a comparative correlation between two real-life environmental factors.

Yeah, I know what I asked. And, despite typing some crap, you evaded the question.

For example, I ask when it's okay to alter data to fit the hypothesis, your answer is that "climategate is a hoax." You can't call that an answer to the question. "Chickens don't have lips" is about as pertinent -- and much more accurate, besides.

From your responses, it is clear that you don't know dick, and are just parroting the skepticalscience blog's answers in their "when denier says" list. If I say ANYTHING not in that script, you founder, deflect, deny, speak to issues not mentioned, and make unsupported assertions. In other words, you're useless and ignorant. Quoting a blog, while disparaging blogs is your level of intellectual integrity. On the bright side, it will be wicked easy to improve from this point.
 
2012-10-02 01:18:32 PM  

GeneralJim: it's not MY fault one of our resident shill scienticians doesn't get the point


GeneralJim: This "my team is scientists, your team is shills" crap is proof that you are working in a POLITICAL frame, rather than a scientific one

 
2012-10-02 01:19:11 PM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
Second: As for the correlation between CO2 and temperature, it looks like this:

I know you don't know dick about science, but have you ever heard the phrase "correlation does not prove causation?" It means that just because two things happen at the same time does not mean that they are in a causal relationship. That's the point of the "Pirates versus Global Warming" graph we all know and love. The fact that temperatures have correlated somewhat with carbon dioxide levels for the past hundred and fifty cherry-picked years does not prove a relationship. As a matter of fact, the current multi-century trend started well BEFORE the industrial revolution. That's WHY warmers always limit their graphs (like you did) to that span of time -- because not only does correlation not prove causation, in the case of carbon dioxide level and temperature, they don't even correlate well at all on the macro level. Further, at the micro level, while they do correlate much better, carbon dioxide level FOLLOWS temperature, and therefore cannot be controlling it to any significant degree. So, the fact that carbon dioxide levels and temperature have been rising at the same time is mostly coincidence, although the increased temperature accounts for SOME of the rise in carbon dioxide, although probably not much of it.
 
2012-10-02 01:36:47 PM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron:
2. What does it mean when the factor you hypothesize as a cause of another FOLLOWS that factor?
2. It means you're misinterpreting the data.
Really? So, if I claim that when it warms up in the morning, that warming causes the sun to come up, I'm right, and you're misinterpreting the data? Seriously? You're a friggin' idiot.

3. What does it mean when the predictions of your models fall outside the error bars by a factor > 3?
3. It means you're misinterpreting the error bars.

"This derived error bar only addressed the error due to incomplete spatial coverage of measurements. As there are other potential sources of error, such as urban warming near meteorological stations, etc., many other methods have been used to verify the approximate magnitude of inferred global warming."
Oh, really? Error bars mean nothing, then? Well, if THAT is true, the goddam models should not be used to set policy that costs people TRILLIONS of dollars, should they? And if the models are that frigging inaccurate, such that three times their error bars is close enough, then actual science would NEVER use their pointless output, and should rely on observations, should it? Congratulations -- you just found ANOTHER way to shoot down this whole global warming crap.


4. Under what circumstances is it scientifically valid to alter the data to fit your hypothesis?
5. Should chief researchers be scientists in the field under study?
6. Should chief researchers have large amounts of income dependent upon the research reaching specific conclusions?

4, 5, 6. Climategate is a myth.
So, you're fine with making up data, having a railroad engineer head up the world-wide, allegedly authoritative body on climate, and also with that railroad engineer having a company that makes money dealing with the problems the body he heads "finds," but only IF it finds them?

And, incidentally, Climategate was real. It was in all the papers. So, you're going with simple denial, ...



2-6: Did you follow the links, or not?

For 2 and 3, apparently not, since you just make a rehash of your previous complaints.

As for Climategate being real because it "was in all the papers," so have Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster. All of the allegations have been debunked.

And the articles I link to have plenty of links to the original sources, which is why I link to them in the first place.

7: Boo-farking-hoo. A lead author of an article is also a lead author of a scenario used in that article. What does this have to do with the peer-review process? Absolutely nothing.

A biased observer calling something "propaganda" doesn't make it so.
 
2012-10-02 01:58:22 PM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: The weather, and by extension the climate, are complex, mathematically chaotic systems. That's why attempting to claim that ONE factor controls the temperature is simplification to the point of being a simpleton. That's why I DON'T make such claims.

Nice strawman, because neither do I. If you would bother to actually read my posts and look at the graphs, you would realize that I agree, 100%, that solar activity has a direct effect on global mean temperature. It's just that, at the present time, the ongoing change in CO2 concentration is having an even greater effect.

First, the "it's all the carbon dioxide" claim may not be YOUR claim


You addressed your comment to me, directly. If you didn't want to include me in that generalization, you should have said so.

but it IS the claim of the morons who want to reduce our carbon emissions to the level they were at around the time of the Civil War.

Citation?

As disappointing as it may be, it's not all about you.

wat

So, what you are saying here is that, although carbon dioxide has had essentially bugger all to do with controlling Earth's temperature in the past, NOW it is important. Do you mind explaining which law or laws of physics you think have changed? This is a novel argument, I have to admit, and I'd like to explore it. It's bound to be friggin' hilarious.

Duhh...how about this: CO2 has an effect on surface temperatures, dependent on its atmospheric concentration. If that concentration remains stable, then it would have a minimal effect on climate CHANGE while still affecting climate in general. A slow change in CO2 would result in a slow change in climate, possibly outweighed by other factors. A more rapid change in CO2 would lead to more rapid climate change, and a higher degree of correlation with CO2.

At what time in the past did CO2 levels change as rapidly as they are changing now?

If this is too difficult a concept for you to grasp, just admit it.
 
2012-10-02 02:04:27 PM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
Funny...after consistent 10-degree swings between warm and cold (only three exceptions in 598 million years!), suddenly there are repeated 15-degree swings. What's up with that?

What's up with that? Your lack of understanding, of course. It's about scale.

On the scale of a graph that shows a half-billion years in four or five inches, variations that last less than a million years disappear. So, our CURRENT ICE AGE shows as just a low -- the periodic loss of the interglacial periods is too short to register. There are many factors involved in the temperature, but the variations all occur around a baseline. And that baseline goes up and down by about 10 K. Up, when the solar system is between galactic arms, and down during our (relatively) brief time within a galactic arm.

The cosmic ray flux is greater in the arms, making Earth cooler. That's where we are now, and why we are in an ice age. Get some perspective.
 
2012-10-02 02:09:26 PM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: And if you understand chaos theory, then you should be able to comprehend the effects of perturbations and the idea of the tipping point. Humans have boosted the CO2 content of the atmosphere by 40%. Ask any farmer whether the weather has, in recent years, become more versus less predictable. At some point (and where that point might be is impossible to predict), if we push the atmospheric parameters hard enough and quickly enough, the climate is going to tip over.
"Tipping point" in relation to carbon dioxide levels is bollocks, plain and simple. If carbon dioxide could do that, don't you think it WOULD have when carbon dioxide levels were twenty times what they are now? The fact that we exist proves that such things have not happened, and CANNOT happen.

Or, are you suggesting that this mythical "tipping point" is a point somewhere above twenty times our current levels? I suppose that has not yet been falsified.... but, if this is your claim, STFU until we get, say, halfway there. Which should be never.


How do you know whether or not a tipping point has occurred in the past? What would you expect the effects to be? Do you expect Earth to suddenly turn into a Venus- or Mars-like planet, and that no change of any lesser magnitude could possibly be attributable to chaos?

You, yourself, have pointed out that the correlations between CO2 and temperature have changed over time. It could be changes in solar flux, or land/sea distribution...or it could be chaos. We don't know for certain. All we know is that, at some point, if you perturb a stable system enough, something WILL happen.

...and, of course, you ignored the part of my post concerning present-day indications that something is screwing with the weather.
 
2012-10-02 02:25:20 PM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: One of the problems with the warmer alarmist camp is that, at the very beginning of all this alarmism, it was James Hansen's model which predicted an upcoming ice age, because temperatures in the early 1970s had been cooling for decades. A few years later, when temperatures started to rise, Hansen's models started predicting global conflagration, or whatever this weeks catchphrase is. Apparently, he hasn't noticed that there are climate cycles which are very long compared to human sensibilities. The first couple times, he missed the 60-year cycle, which is reasonably inexcusable, since is is so large, and so regular. Maybe he should have consulted a weatherman...

Maybe you should have consulted Google. The model used in those predictions was Hansen's model for the effects of aerosols in the atmosphere of Venus, and Hansen himself had nothing to do with the adaptation of that model for conditions on Earth.
Funny you should mention Venus... True story: That's exactly what Miskolczi says: the basic (thought) model for our CGMs comes from this Venusian model of Hansen's, and that model is utterly inapplicable to the Earth, since we do NOT have an atmosphere composed almost entirely (>95%) of carbon dioxide. The assumptions valid for Venus don't work here, and, shock of shocks, vastly overestimate the effects of carbon dioxide. </csb>


"Miskolczi says" that current models are based on Hansen's Venus model and are therefore inapplicable? Got any real evidence?

If you keep up this hero worship, you're going to need a new pair of knee pads soon.
 
2012-10-02 02:31:57 PM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: Cool. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation has a 60-year cycle. Now show me where that 60-year cycle shows up anywhere in the global mean temperature record.

I'll wait...
Sure, sure, then I'll prove that the Sun warms the Earth. Jesus, how dim ARE you?

[clivebest.com image 680x480]


Okay, the AMO, like the ENSO, has a measurable effect on global temperatures. This effect is fairly constant (it produces an oscillation within a fairly well defined range), yet temperatures have continued to climb.

Thanks for pointing out that the AMO signal, like that of every other forcing mechanism, is being swamped by the changes resulting from increased CO2. Thanks also for pointing out the similarity between the temperature and CO2 curves.

In soccer, that's called an "own goal." On Fark, call it a "pwn goal."
 
2012-10-02 02:47:30 PM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: Yes, discredited shills. Posting their screeds ad infinitum won't change the optical properties of the atmosphere, nor will it make cosmic rays suddenly start producing condensation nuclei (without which there are no clouds regardless of how many cosmic rays there are).

And, once again, regardless of how many times you ignore the facts, Climategate is just another discredited hoax.
You see? You fling around "discredited shill" in EXACT correspondence to scientists who have falsified the AGW hypothesis. This "my team is scientists, your team is shills" crap is proof that you are working in a POLITICAL frame, rather than a scientific one. That idea that you have is what kept the dark ages going, and science is what ended them. Get with the program.

The only discredited shill in this process is Michael Mann. Even an ignoramus, like yourself, for example, can prove his fraud. And, his fraud has been proven, even if his university (the same one that let Sandusky molest kids for decades, saying nothing was wrong) finds him innocent without interviewing anyone critical of him. His "hockey stick" was PROVEN to be fraudulent, producing a "hockey stick" graph even with an input of red noise. And, Phil Jones has ADMITTED that the attempt to deny the medieval warm period was fraudulent. Your idea of "debunking" involves the use of political power to silence critics. Scientists know better.

And, I LOVE your attempted takedown of Svensmark. It's just one more denial of the science involved. Are you aware that recently CERN proved Svensmark's hypothesis experimentally? It so thoroughly blows a hole in AGW that CERN, being a government-funded institution, forbid its scientists to make any conclusions, or even TALK about the implications of their research on climate science.

Read about it HERE. Read about suppression of discussion HERE.

Forbidding scientists to discuss the public, non-classified, non-weapons-related research is a firs ...


I'll ignore the redundant crap (just as you've ignored the reams of evidence demonstrating that it is, in fact, crap) and just deal with Svensmark.

Svensmark believes that cosmic rays influence cloud cover, and it has in fact been demonstrated that cosmic rays promote aerosol formation. What has NOT been demonstrated is that the increased aerosols then lead to more condensation nuclei. Ant it's condensation nuclei, not aerosol particles, that lead to cloud formation.

Furthermore, Svensmark and his supporters have yet to show any clear correlation between cosmic-ray flux and global temperature.

I've posted this link before, and you've ignored it. Yes, it's a Skeptical Science link. It also contains its own links to over a dozen original, peer-reviewed articles on the subject. And it utterly demolishes Svensmark's theory hypothesis.

I await your further ignorance of this information.
 
2012-10-02 03:08:57 PM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: First: I was responding to your hypothetical question regarding the significance of a correlation coefficient (or factor; I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one) of "30." You made no mention of temperature, CO2, or any other specific factor. I gave you an answer, namely, that (assuming that "30" means 0.3) it would show a positive correlation. If no other factors showed a greater correlation, then that would be the most important single factor, although not necessarily the dominant one over all time scales. I then gave a comparative correlation between two real-life environmental factors.

Yeah, I know what I asked. And, despite typing some crap, you evaded the question.



The fact that you don't like my answer doesn't mean I didn't give an answer.


For example, I ask when it's okay to alter data to fit the hypothesis, your answer is that "climategate is a hoax." You can't call that an answer to the question. "Chickens don't have lips" is about as pertinent -- and much more accurate, besides.


I also gave evidence to support my answer. Ignoring that, however, is just how you roll.


From your responses, it is clear that you don't know dick, and are just parroting the skepticalscience blog's answers in their "when denier says" list. If I say ANYTHING not in that script, you founder, deflect, deny, speak to issues not mentioned, and make unsupported assertions. In other words, you're useless and ignorant. Quoting a blog, while disparaging blogs is your level of intellectual integrity. On the bright side, it will be wicked easy to improve from this point.


What part of my response above is foundering, deflecting, denying, speaking to issues not mentioned, or making unsupported assertions? Meanwhile, you make statements like "Miskolczi says..." and present them as gospel.

You seem to think that any independent thought or analysis must be some sort of deflection from whatever it is you're quoting. It makes you look like you really don't understand your links. You read the words from your link, accept them blindly, then lash out when someone points out that those words don't mean what you think they mean.

Whatever you want to call that sort of behavior, it ain't science.
 
2012-10-02 03:19:15 PM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: Second: As for the correlation between CO2 and temperature, it looks like this:

I know you don't know dick about science, but have you ever heard the phrase "correlation does not prove causation?" It means that just because two things happen at the same time does not mean that they are in a causal relationship. That's the point of the "Pirates versus Global Warming" graph we all know and love. The fact that temperatures have correlated somewhat with carbon dioxide levels for the past hundred and fifty cherry-picked years does not prove a relationship. As a matter of fact, the current multi-century trend started well BEFORE the industrial revolution. That's WHY warmers always limit their graphs (like you did) to that span of time -- because not only does correlation not prove causation, in the case of carbon dioxide level and temperature, they don't even correlate well at all on the macro level. Further, at the micro level, while they do correlate much better, carbon dioxide level FOLLOWS temperature, and therefore cannot be controlling it to any significant degree. So, the fact that carbon dioxide levels and temperature have been rising at the same time is mostly coincidence, although the increased temperature accounts for SOME of the rise in carbon dioxide, although probably not much of it.



Here is the very question of yours I was responding to:

Oh, really? SInce 1950. Wow, isn't that special. How about the correlation between carbon dioxide and TEMPERATURE? And, over more than a cherry-picked couple of decades? You know, like this:

You asked about a correlation; I answered with a graph of said correlation. Don't start biatching after the fact (especially using arguments that were reduced to roadkill months ago) because you don't like what the graph shows.
 
2012-10-02 03:23:48 PM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
And your extrapolation of an upcoming ice age is, of course, evidence-free. "Most guesses"? Sad.

Finally, you just couldn't hold off with the old "destroy the Merkin Way of Life" line, could you?

Well, numbnuts, I wouldn't give a rat's ass if some scientists have a wrong idea -- unless that wrong idea is going to be used to cause me harm.

So, in your infinite ignorance, why don't YOU tell me what increasing the cost of energy in the U.S.A. by about a factor of four, while allowing China and India, to name just two, to continue to burn cheap coal, will do to the American economy?



You only have 6-1/2 (well, 4-1/2 since I lumped three of them together) answers to go.

Speaking of lumps, you must have taken a MASSIVE one to the head if you think "Climategate is a myth" is any sort of answer. But, just for the lulz, let's assume it is. Well then,

Anthropogenic [Global Warming / Climate Change / Climate Disruption / Climate Apocalypse] is a hoax.


We're all done, eh? I guess I took care of that. According to the rules you give yourself, I just debunked it. Just another case of morons making up rules only for OTHER people. This whole business is rife with that, starting at the very beginning where some git makes a hypothesis, and then demands that others not only falsify it, but come up with the actual cause for the phenomenon, or it's true. Science doesn't work that way. Once again, you conflate science and politics.
 
2012-10-02 03:35:39 PM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: Funny...after consistent 10-degree swings between warm and cold (only three exceptions in 598 million years!), suddenly there are repeated 15-degree swings. What's up with that?
What's up with that? Your lack of understanding, of course. It's about scale.

On the scale of a graph that shows a half-billion years in four or five inches, variations that last less than a million years disappear. So, our CURRENT ICE AGE shows as just a low -- the periodic loss of the interglacial periods is too short to register.



So you're admitting that YOUR temperature graph is inaccurate?

Also, the CURRENT ice age? We're in an interglacial, with anthropogenic warming on top of that, yet your graph shows the CURRENT temperature at a glacial minimum. Bogus graph is bogus.


There are many factors involved in the temperature, but the variations all occur around a baseline. And that baseline goes up and down by about 10 K. Up, when the solar system is between galactic arms, and down during our (relatively) brief time within a galactic arm.


So the baseline temperature has remained the same throughout geologic time, even though solar flux has increased by 40% and CO2 has fluctuated even more wildly. Do you honestly believe that, or did you just not think about that little difficulty?


The cosmic ray flux is greater in the arms, making Earth cooler. That's where we are now, and why we are in an ice age. Get some perspective.


Svensmark hath spoken, and it is written. Except, not. See my previous (ignored, at least by you) link refuting the whole cosmic-ray/temperature link hypothesis. You've just thrown a wrench at it yourself by saying that Earth's present cool temperatures (what cool temperatures?) are the result of high cosmic-ray flux (that mechanism doesn't seem to be working at the moment, at least not as much as CO2 is working in the opposite direction).
 
2012-10-02 03:46:50 PM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: And your extrapolation of an upcoming ice age is, of course, evidence-free. "Most guesses"? Sad.

Finally, you just couldn't hold off with the old "destroy the Merkin Way of Life" line, could you?

Well, numbnuts, I wouldn't give a rat's ass if some scientists have a wrong idea -- unless that wrong idea is going to be used to cause me harm.

So, in your infinite ignorance, why don't YOU tell me what increasing the cost of energy in the U.S.A. by about a factor of four, while allowing China and India, to name just two, to continue to burn cheap coal, will do to the American economy?



Hey, Rocky, watch me pull these numbers out of my ass.


You only have 6-1/2 (well, 4-1/2 since I lumped three of them together) answers to go.
Speaking of lumps, you must have taken a MASSIVE one to the head if you think "Climategate is a myth" is any sort of answer. But, just for the lulz, let's assume it is. Well then,

Anthropogenic [Global Warming / Climate Change / Climate Disruption / Climate Apocalypse] is a hoax.

We're all done, eh? I guess I took care of that. According to the rules you give yourself, I just debunked it. Just another case of morons making up rules only for OTHER people. This whole business is rife with that, starting at the very beginning where some git makes a hypothesis, and then demands that others not only falsify it, but come up with the actual cause for the phenomenon, or it's true. Science doesn't work that way. Once again, you conflate science and politics.



Once again, you've ignored my supporting evidence. Once again, here it is.

Investigations clear scientists of wrongdoing

Conservative media distort stolen emails in latest attack on global warming consensus (link won't embed: http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/12/01/climategate-exposed-conser vative-media-distort/157590)

Newspapers Retract 'Climategate' Claims, but Damage Still Done

Keep patting yourself on the back. It won't cure your scientific ignorance, but at least you might get a good burp out of it.
 
2012-10-02 03:52:00 PM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
And your extrapolation of an upcoming ice age is, of course, evidence-free. "Most guesses"? Sad.

Sure. Only the timing is in question. During an ice age, the brief interglacial periods last around 10-20 thousand years, and the current inter-glacial began about 10,000 years ago. We've been cooling off for 8,000 of those years. At what point does the icing not stop? While one CAN extrapolate from past experience and data, the exact "tipping point" to a massive glaciation happens is beyond our predictive abilities. You know what the wisdom says: "In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."
 
2012-10-02 04:16:30 PM  
dready zim:
What sort of person would say this?

"I have noticed that quite a few of the people I identify as utter lunkheads, unwilling to do more than spout talking points and party viewpoint, all seem to have a couple of characteristics in common.

First, they all seem to think that they can read minds. They will tell you what you are thinking, and what you are planning, and what you are trying to do. And, what they think you are trying to do is grossly offensive. The horrid things they think are in my mind really aren't, and it makes me wonder how twisted must THEY be that such perfidy is what they think others are up to. Yikes."

Sounds like JIM.

How twisted THEY be....

Well, that's a nice, specific accusation. The problem with nice, specific accusations, is that they're, well, SPECIFIC, and therefore can be falsified.

So, how about you provide as many references to me claiming to know what other people think as you possibly can?
Unless, of course, this is just more made-up warmer bullshiat...
 
2012-10-02 04:21:01 PM  
HighZoolander:
GeneralJim: it's not MY fault one of our resident shill scienticians doesn't get the point

GeneralJim: This "my team is scientists, your team is shills" crap is proof that you are working in a POLITICAL frame, rather than a scientific one

Yep. Climate science on Fark is a political topic. Not my choice, but if you think I am going to be bound by the rules of science while you are playing politics, you're mistaken. Talk science, I'll answer science. Talk politics, I'll present the science, and talk politics. I know this is a difficult concept for you, but keep trying. Someday!
 
2012-10-02 04:22:47 PM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: And your extrapolation of an upcoming ice age is, of course, evidence-free. "Most guesses"? Sad.
Sure. Only the timing is in question. During an ice age, the brief interglacial periods last around 10-20 thousand years, and the current inter-glacial began about 10,000 years ago. We've been cooling off for 8,000 of those years. At what point does the icing not stop? While one CAN extrapolate from past experience and data, the exact "tipping point" to a massive glaciation happens is beyond our predictive abilities. You know what the wisdom says: "In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."


Before the current ice age, the climate was presumably in some other more or less stable equilibrium. Some factor had to push that up to the "tipping point" and to a recurring glacial/interglacial cycle, an equilibrium toward the "less stable" end of the spectrum. In the absence of any additional factors, this cycle would be expected to continue.

Unfortunately, there is an additional factor; not CO2 itself, but the change in CO2 over a geologically minuscule period of time. Even the lists of articles you cite to refute the standard model outputs do no more than reduce the magnitude of this force by roughly half. And since this is a cumulative and ongoing change, its effects can only continue to increase as well. The presence of other contributors to global temperatures, whether major or trivial, does nothing to alter this unless they also begin to change beyond their historical ranges of variability. Ultimately, at some point, a "tipping point" will be reached, ending the ice-age cycles, but only reaching a new climatic equilibrium after CO2 levels have stabilized.
 
2012-10-02 04:39:48 PM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
As for Climategate being real because it "was in all the papers," so have Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster. All of the allegations have been debunked.

You have trouble with that word, "debunked." The verb you wanted was "whitewashed."

Federal Inspector General: Penn State guilty of 'blue and whitewash'

Forbes: Michael Mann And The ClimateGate Whitewash: Part One

Forbes: Michael Mann And The ClimateGate Whitewash, Part II

WSJ: The Climategate Whitewash Continues

... and my personal favorite:

Official Probe Shows Climategate Whitewash Link to Sandusky Child Sex Case

And THIS is what you mean when you say "debunked?" Nice. That whole American Revolution thing has been similarly debunked, and we are still British colonies.

DENIER
 
2012-10-02 05:03:37 PM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
7: Boo-farking-hoo. A lead author of an article is also a lead author of a scenario used in that article. What does this have to do with the peer-review process? Absolutely nothing.

Exactly! Finally, you say something correct. I know, I know, it's accidental, but...

Correct: The IPCC report prepared by the Greenpeace representative, and "reviewed" by him has NOTHING to do with the peer-review process. The problem is, the IPCC claimed that it WAS peer-reviewed. The IPCC needs to decide if it is going to publish peer-reviewed science, or aggregate propaganda literature from Greenpeace and the WWF -- which they have ALSO done. Remember "Himalayagate?" As a matter of fact, careful, quite generous, analysis of the IPCC literature shows that, despite their claims, a minimum of 30% of the articles are from newspapers, environmental brochures, and the like.

Claims:

"People can have confidence in the IPCC's conclusions...Given that it is all on the basis of peer-reviewed literature."

"The IPCC doesn't do any research itself. We only develop our assessments on the basis of peer-reviewed literature." -

"This is based on peer-reviewed literature. That's the manner in which the IPCC functions. We don't pick up a newspaper article and, based on that, come up with our findings."
(Video removed by YouTube) Available on HARK, HERE.

"As IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri recently stated: 'IPCC relies entirely on peer reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment...'"
(Article removed from EPA Web site) Same article at NY TIMES


... and a metric buttload of more claims of the sterling nature of IPCC literature, all of those claims being demonstrably false, are HERE.
 
2012-10-02 05:30:15 PM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: The weather, and by extension the climate, are complex, mathematically chaotic systems. That's why attempting to claim that ONE factor controls the temperature is simplification to the point of being a simpleton. That's why I DON'T make such claims.

Nice strawman, because neither do I. If you would bother to actually read my posts and look at the graphs, you would realize that I agree, 100%, that solar activity has a direct effect on global mean temperature. It's just that, at the present time, the ongoing change in CO2 concentration is having an even greater effect.

First, the "it's all the carbon dioxide" claim may not be YOUR claim

You addressed your comment to me, directly. If you didn't want to include me in that generalization, you should have said so.

Meh. The dangers of playing science as a team sport. Suck it up.


but it IS the claim of the morons who want to reduce our carbon emissions to the level they were at around the time of the Civil War.

Citation?

Okey-doke:


Temperature on Earth Controlled by Carbon Dioxide
Pertinent quote: "A new study, however, has shown that it is carbon dioxide -- which only accounts for 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, compared to water vapour and clouds accumulated 75 percent -- that regulates the planet's temperature." [Emphasis in article]

Climate Stabilization Targets
Pertinent quote: "Thus, long-term effects are primarily controlled by carbon dioxide."

Interglacials, Milankovitch Cycles, and Carbon Dioxide (Being inculcated to students)
Pertinent quote: "During interglacials, global temperature is also believed to be primarily controlled by carbon dioxide concentrations, modulated by internal processes such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation."

... and, you know what? It sure looks like you're using your requests for citations as a method to shut me up.
How's that working for you? SO.... click 'em yourself, you lazy bastidge. Let me google that for you....
 
2012-10-02 05:49:05 PM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
At what time in the past did CO2 levels change as rapidly as they are changing now?

Just about every time a supervolcano erupts. Also, many bolide strikes (the ones on land) torch up a whole continent at once, like the one that apparently destroyed the Clovis people on North America, and left a layer of carbon over the whole continent. Those would be more carbon dioxide, and quicker.

So, you're moving the goalpost from "level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" to "rate of change of the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?" Really? You had better go ask Coach -- you know, Pope Al. Isn't that shift just a tad, oh, say OBVIOUS? And, does it mean that you are finally capitulating to the science that shows that carbon dioxide levels have about 1.3 x diddly to do with planetary temperature?
 
2012-10-02 05:50:01 PM  

GeneralJim:

... and my personal favorite:

Official Probe Shows Climategate Whitewash Link to Sandusky Child Sex Case


Congratulations! You now have zero credibility. Wait, you already had none, so I guess you've just eliminated any possibility that you'll ever have any.

I honestly thought that despite your obvious mental illness you were a better person than that.
 
2012-10-02 06:01:50 PM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
Or, are you suggesting that this mythical "tipping point" is a point somewhere above twenty times our current levels? I suppose that has not yet been falsified.... but, if this is your claim, STFU until we get, say, halfway there. Which should be never.

How do you know whether or not a tipping point has occurred in the past?

You and I both sucking wind proves it did not. Seriously? Earth becomes Venus-like, and life continues? Let me guess: You have a closed-head injury? Is that it?

I mean, James Hansen is about the only 'tard willing to go THAT balls-to-the-wall over AGW. Even the IPCC says there is essentially NO chance that this could occur from anthropogenic causes. And if the IPCC says a warming event can't happen, you can take that to the bank. It's when they say what they think COULD happen that you have to grab for your wallet.
 
2012-10-02 06:09:59 PM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
"Miskolczi says" that current models are based on Hansen's Venus model and are therefore inapplicable? Got any real evidence?

Real evidence? Sure, read it yourself.


If you keep up this hero worship, you're going to need a new pair of knee pads soon.

Spit out Hansen's dong, you're mumbling.

Actual science, performed by actual scientists. I like that. You should, too. Too bad you're hung up on cheats and proven frauds.
 
2012-10-02 06:49:18 PM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
Thanks for pointing out that the AMO signal, like that of every other forcing mechanism, is being swamped by the changes resulting from increased CO2. Thanks also for pointing out the similarity between the temperature and CO2 curves.

Oh, you can't read graphs, either? Isn't there a skepticalscience blog entry you can quote for rebuttal?

YOU don't get to assign causes to variations. And, be aware that the AMO, PDO, etc. are imposed upon the underlying trend, which has been up since before the industrial revolution. So, if the AMO and PDO suggest that the temperatures should be going up, and they are not, where is the mighty effect of carbon dioxide that you claim?

Tell you what, Buttercup -- Your busted-ass falsified AGW predicts a steady rise in temperatures. Any solar-based model suggests that, even though we are at a peak of Solar Cycle 24, the wimpiness of 24 means that there will be little to no warming, and when 24 winds down, cooling will commence, reinforced by the AMO and PDO cycle. And, if the pundits are correct, and Solar Cycle 25 is also wimpy (Reports are that it may be the weakest cycle in almost 300 years - REPORT HERE.) cooling will accelerate. It would appear that another little ice age is more likely than warming, with reasonably steep cooling being more likely than either of those extremes. It'll be easy to tell which hypothesis is more correct -- unless you are going to claim that the Sun and the Earth are paid shills of the oil companies....

Meh, who am I kidding? You have managed to deny several falsifications of AGW -- what's one more? And, I have literally seen it claimed that global warming CAUSES global cooling. The derp runs deep.
 
2012-10-02 06:53:50 PM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
In soccer, that's called an "own goal." On Fark, call it a "pwn goal."

... and here I am, playing chess with a pigeon again. Debating warmers on the topic of climate change is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

So, gloat and fly away home. But, the actual term involved is "n00b pwn," n00b.
 
2012-10-02 10:44:23 PM  
Huh. I came here to drop off a last-minute CSB since I met the first author of the paper TFA is talking about last night, but I guess the thread is still going.


GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: In soccer, that's called an "own goal." On Fark, call it a "pwn goal."
... and here I am, playing chess with a pigeon again. Debating warmers on the topic of climate change is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

So, gloat and fly away home. But, the actual term involved is "n00b pwn," n00b.


I would argue that the behaviour you're describing matches more what you're doing. The graph you posted would seem to undermine the case you were trying to make that the (supposed) omission of the AMO would somehow invalidate all modelling efforts. The graph you yourself posted would instead support the idea that such shorter-term variation does not affect longer-term processes such as those associated with climate change.

Although you may not like it, it does seem that common sense is an oxymoron has caught you scoring on your own goal. The fact that you're ignoring the part of his post where he reasons it out and instead choose to fling childish insults does suggest you're the one pooping and flying away from the argument presented. I suggest you take some of that energy you expend in insulting people and instead use it to understand the graphs you post.
 
2012-10-02 11:08:09 PM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron:
Thanks for pointing out that the AMO signal, like that of every other forcing mechanism, is being swamped by the changes resulting from increased CO2. Thanks also for pointing out the similarity between the temperature and CO2 curves.

Oh, you can't read graphs, either? Isn't there a skepticalscience blog entry you can quote for rebuttal?

YOU don't get to assign causes to variations. And, be aware that the AMO, PDO, etc. are imposed upon the underlying trend, which has been up since before the industrial revolution. So, if the AMO and PDO suggest that the temperatures should be going up, and they are not, where is the mighty effect of carbon dioxide that you claim?


You do realize that your post is somewhat nonsensical as you yourself answer your own question? The "mighty effect of carbon dioxide" is the "the underlying trend" you yourself identified. The existence of shorter-term processes such as the AMO and PDO do not somehow disprove the existence of longer-term processes such as climate change. You inadvertently illustrated this with the graph you yourself presented:

clivebest.com


GeneralJim: Tell you what, Buttercup -- Your busted-ass falsified AGW predicts a steady rise in temperatures. Any solar-based model suggests that, even though we are at a peak of Solar Cycle 24, the wimpiness of 24 means that there will be little to no warming, and when 24 winds down, cooling will commence, reinforced by the AMO and PDO cycle. And, if the pundits are correct, and Solar Cycle 25 is also wimpy (Reports are that it may be the weakest cycle in almost 300 years - REPORT HERE.) cooling will accelerate. It would appear that another little ice age is more likely than warming, with reasonably steep cooling being more likely than either of those extremes. It'll be easy to tell which hypothesis is more correct -- unless you are going to claim that the Sun and the Earth are paid shills of the oil companies....

Meh, who am I kidding? You have managed to deny several falsifications of AGW -- what's one more? And, I have literally seen it claimed that global warming CAUSES global cooling. The derp runs deep.


You're running into the same problem. The existence of other factors does not somehow mean that other processes such as climate change magically go away. What you're saying here is not somehow mutually exclusive with changes due to anthropogenic climate change - just as the PDO and AMO you mention are not mutually exclusive with changes due to solar forcing.
 
2012-10-02 11:30:04 PM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron:
"Miskolczi says" that current models are based on Hansen's Venus model and are therefore inapplicable? Got any real evidence?

Real evidence? Sure, read it yourself.


Miskolczi makes no such claim in the paper you linked to. You're may be making this up unless you can provide something else.


GeneralJim: If you keep up this hero worship, you're going to need a new pair of knee pads soon.

Spit out Hansen's dong, you're mumbling.

Actual science, performed by actual scientists. I like that. You should, too. Too bad you're hung up on cheats and proven frauds.


Ahem:

GeneralJim: This "my team is scientists, your team is shills" crap is proof that you are working in a POLITICAL frame, rather than a scientific one. That idea that you have is what kept the dark ages going, and science is what ended them. Get with the program.

 
2012-10-02 11:31:37 PM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
Svensmark believes that cosmic rays influence cloud cover, and it has in fact been demonstrated that cosmic rays promote aerosol formation. What has NOT been demonstrated is that the increased aerosols then lead to more condensation nuclei. Ant it's condensation nuclei, not aerosol particles, that lead to cloud formation.

As difficult a task as it is, using the skepticalscience blog as your reference make you look even MORE like a useless tool. But, since you ARE, here's a paper showing just what you claim has not been shown: Cosmic ray induced formation of aerosol particles and cloud condensation nuclei: Evidence from the first detection of large negative and positive cluster ions in the upper troposphere

And, if that weren't enough, you COULD have checked for a correlation yourself. This shows the AMAZING correlation between cosmic ray flux and low cloud cover:


i45.tinypic.com




Furthermore, Svensmark and his supporters have yet to show any clear correlation between cosmic-ray flux and global temperature

These look reasonable to me... 

members.shaw.ca

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu
Another view...

a-sceptical-mind.com
And, yet another view
 
2012-10-02 11:39:54 PM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
You seem to think that any independent thought or analysis must be some sort of deflection from whatever it is you're quoting. It makes you look like you really don't understand your links. You read the words from your link, accept them blindly, then lash out when someone points out that those words don't mean what you think they mean.

Horse crap. You could answer "When is it appropriate to fake data" with "Never," and move on to any extraneous explanation you felt necessary. But you have avoided ever so many opportunities to answer. It's not like they are trick questions -- they're straightforward, and rather simple concepts. Hell, I even answered 'em myself. It seems like you want to reserve the right to fake data, if the real data do not support your hypothesis sufficiently. Why is that?

And, OH, PLEASE... *I* don't understand words that I read?
 

img.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-02 11:43:41 PM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: Or, are you suggesting that this mythical "tipping point" is a point somewhere above twenty times our current levels? I suppose that has not yet been falsified.... but, if this is your claim, STFU until we get, say, halfway there. Which should be never.

How do you know whether or not a tipping point has occurred in the past?
You and I both sucking wind proves it did not. Seriously? Earth becomes Venus-like, and life continues? Let me guess: You have a closed-head injury? Is that it?

I mean, James Hansen is about the only 'tard willing to go THAT balls-to-the-wall over AGW. Even the IPCC says there is essentially NO chance that this could occur from anthropogenic causes. And if the IPCC says a warming event can't happen, you can take that to the bank. It's when they say what they think COULD happen that you have to grab for your wallet.



You're arguing against something like a straw-man here. A tipping point does not necessarily mean a runaway greenhouse effect or other neverendingly accelerating unidirectional change. Think of it more as an inflection point between alternative stable states that is difficult if not impossible to reverse. I can explain further if needed.

I can't really fault you for this since this misconception occurs on both sides of the debate. Just be aware that what you're arguing against really isn't apparent in the scientific literature - something you're aware of if what you said about the IPCC is true.
 
2012-10-02 11:47:38 PM  
/delurk

Hey, lying fark stick, don't drag Carl Sagan through the mud by even remotely implying his support for your statements. Your statements have been shown to be in error repeatedly, starting way back when you were just the bold text poster rather than the green text thread shiatter. I mostly ignore your idiocy any more unless someone seems to think you have something resembling a point, but Carl Sagan did more to popularize and grow interest in science than any other scientist of his era. Yet here you are, shiatting all over the hard work of literally thousands of scientists over 40 years or more of climate study.

How about you break out some different graphics to highlight your deliberately obfuscating posting style.

/relurk
 
2012-10-03 01:48:07 AM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: 7: Boo-farking-hoo. A lead author of an article is also a lead author of a scenario used in that article. What does this have to do with the peer-review process? Absolutely nothing.
Exactly! Finally, you say something correct. I know, I know, it's accidental, but...

Correct: The IPCC report prepared by the Greenpeace representative, and "reviewed" by him has NOTHING to do with the peer-review process. The problem is, the IPCC claimed that it WAS peer-reviewed. The IPCC needs to decide if it is going to publish peer-reviewed science, or aggregate propaganda literature from Greenpeace and the WWF -- which they have ALSO done. Remember "Himalayagate?" As a matter of fact, careful, quite generous, analysis of the IPCC literature shows that, despite their claims, a minimum of 30% of the articles are from newspapers, environmental brochures, and the like.

Claims:

"People can have confidence in the IPCC's conclusions...Given that it is all on the basis of peer-reviewed literature."

"The IPCC doesn't do any research itself. We only develop our assessments on the basis of peer-reviewed literature." -

"This is based on peer-reviewed literature. That's the manner in which the IPCC functions. We don't pick up a newspaper article and, based on that, come up with our findings."
(Video removed by YouTube) Available on HARK, HERE.

"As IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri recently stated: 'IPCC relies entirely on peer reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment...'"
(Article removed from EPA Web site) Same article at NY TIMES


... and a metric buttload of more claims of the sterling nature of IPCC literature, all of those claims being demonstrably false, are HERE.



Nothing in your post had anything to do with what I said:

1. You claimed that having one lead author for both the main study and a specific scenario from that study was a breach of the peer-review process.

2. I disagreed.

3. You then ignored that completely and went off on a tangent about how the article's claim to have been peer-reviewed is false. How do you derive that from the same-author "problem"? Or is it just another attempt to flee from a lost argument?
 
2012-10-03 02:06:13 AM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: The weather, and by extension the climate, are complex, mathematically chaotic systems. That's why attempting to claim that ONE factor controls the temperature is simplification to the point of being a simpleton. That's why I DON'T make such claims.

Nice strawman, because neither do I. If you would bother to actually read my posts and look at the graphs, you would realize that I agree, 100%, that solar activity has a direct effect on global mean temperature. It's just that, at the present time, the ongoing change in CO2 concentration is having an even greater effect.

First, the "it's all the carbon dioxide" claim may not be YOUR claim

You addressed your comment to me, directly. If you didn't want to include me in that generalization, you should have said so.
Meh. The dangers of playing science as a team sport. Suck it up.


but it IS the claim of the morons who want to reduce our carbon emissions to the level they were at around the time of the Civil War.

Citation?
Okey-doke:


Temperature on Earth Controlled by Carbon Dioxide
Pertinent quote: "A new study, however, has shown that it is carbon dioxide -- which only accounts for 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, compared to water vapour and clouds accumulated 75 percent -- that regulates the planet's temperature." [Emphasis in article]

Climate Stabilization Targets
Pertinent quote: "Thus, long-term effects are primarily controlled by carbon dioxide."

Interglacials, Milankovitch Cycles, and Carbon Dioxide (Being inculcated to students)
Pertinent quote: "During interglacials, global temperature is also believed to be primarily controlled by carbon dioxide concentrations, modulated by internal processes such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation."

... and, you know what? It sure looks like you're using your requests for citations as a method to shut me up.
How's that working for you? SO.... click 'em ...



1. None of these articles suggest a return to pre-Industrial Revolution CO2 levels. So much for the "morons."

2. See that word bolded in your second and third excerpts? What does "primarily" mean? How does that relate to your claim that these people are claiming CO2 is the ONE controlling factor?

3. The absence of a qualifier in the first link is because the article is about something else entirely. The REAL pertinent quote is this: "The study, to be published in the Friday edition of the journal Science, shows that without the non-condensing greenhouse gases -- carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and chlorofluorocarbons -- water vapour and clouds would be unable to maintain the planet's temperature on their own, and we would collapse back into another ice age." Do you agree or disagree that, in the absence of greenhouse gases, Earth's equilibrium temperature would be well below freezing?

Try again.
 
2012-10-03 02:25:58 AM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: At what time in the past did CO2 levels change as rapidly as they are changing now?
Just about every time a supervolcano erupts. Also, many bolide strikes (the ones on land) torch up a whole continent at once, like the one that apparently destroyed the Clovis people on North America, and left a layer of carbon over the whole continent. Those would be more carbon dioxide, and quicker.

So, you're moving the goalpost from "level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" to "rate of change of the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?" Really? You had better go ask Coach -- you know, Pope Al. Isn't that shift just a tad, oh, say OBVIOUS? And, does it mean that you are finally capitulating to the science that shows that carbon dioxide levels have about 1.3 x diddly to do with planetary temperature?


If you can find the points in the paleoclimatological record where atmospheric CO2 has increased rapidly, and can analyze those time periods with enough sensitivity to determine the climatic effects on a scale of years to decades, then you will have found useable analogs for the current situation. Until then, you're comparing apples to a grab bag of mixed fruit.

As for the effects of CO2 change versus CO2 levels, the entire debate centers around the fact that CO2 levels are changing. If the rate of change were zero, CO2 levels wouldn't be such a contentious issue, and people would be looking elsewhere to explain the observed warming.

You pointed out yourself that this is ultimately a political issue. And the politics mostly center around--what, the CO2 levels themselves, or the fact that CO2 levels are climbing at an accelerating rate because of human activity?
 
2012-10-03 02:41:25 AM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: Or, are you suggesting that this mythical "tipping point" is a point somewhere above twenty times our current levels? I suppose that has not yet been falsified.... but, if this is your claim, STFU until we get, say, halfway there. Which should be never.

How do you know whether or not a tipping point has occurred in the past?

You and I both sucking wind proves it did not. Seriously? Earth becomes Venus-like, and life continues? Let me guess: You have a closed-head injury? Is that it?

I mean, James Hansen is about the only 'tard willing to go THAT balls-to-the-wall over AGW. Even the IPCC says there is essentially NO chance that this could occur from anthropogenic causes. And if the IPCC says a warming event can't happen, you can take that to the bank. It's when they say what they think COULD happen that you have to grab for your wallet.



Your ability to deliberately misunderstand things is boundless.

Here's what you said about tipping points:

"'Tipping point' in relation to carbon dioxide levels is bollocks, plain and simple. If carbon dioxide could do that, don't you think it WOULD have when carbon dioxide levels were twenty times what they are now? The fact that we exist proves that such things have not happened, and CANNOT happen.

"Or, are you suggesting that this mythical "tipping point" is a point somewhere above twenty times our current levels? I suppose that has not yet been falsified.... but, if this is your claim, STFU until we get, say, halfway there. Which should be never."


You denied that any tipping point had ever been reached. I asked how you could tell, meaning, "What is the signature of a tipping point having been reached?" I could argue that every nonperiodic shift (periodic oscillations could represent fluctuations around a mean) might indicate some form of tipping point, a shift from one stable climatic regime to another.

You seem to think that a "tipping point" can only mean a catastrophic change, and that Earth's continued habitability proves that no tipping point has ever been reached. At least you seemed to think so, until you posted this:

GeneralJim: While one CAN extrapolate from past experience and data, the exact "tipping point" to a massive glaciation happens is beyond our predictive abilities.


So which is it? Tipping points at every ice age or other climatic shift, or tipping points are impossible because CO2 levels were 20 times higher in the past than they are now, and we're still breathing?
 
2012-10-03 02:54:11 AM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: "Miskolczi says" that current models are based on Hansen's Venus model and are therefore inapplicable? Got any real evidence?
Real evidence? Sure, read it yourself.


If you keep up this hero worship, you're going to need a new pair of knee pads soon.
Spit out Hansen's dong, you're mumbling.

Actual science, performed by actual scientists. I like that. You should, too. Too bad you're hung up on cheats and proven frauds.


Your link's formatting sucks, but it doesn't matter. It's about the "semi-infinite atmosphere." That's the one where the Divine Dr. M. retrofitted his kludge onto a model which you claim is hopelessly flawed from the outset and got the results he wanted. The key value in his calculations is nothing more than "an empirical estimate."

Link (note: this is a denier's blog; she doesn't seem to understand the significance of "an empirical estimate" either)

He pulled a number out of...somewhere...because it made the final numbers look good.
 
2012-10-03 03:03:28 AM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: Thanks for pointing out that the AMO signal, like that of every other forcing mechanism, is being swamped by the changes resulting from increased CO2. Thanks also for pointing out the similarity between the temperature and CO2 curves.
Oh, you can't read graphs, either? Isn't there a skepticalscience blog entry you can quote for rebuttal?

YOU don't get to assign causes to variations. And, be aware that the AMO, PDO, etc. are imposed upon the underlying trend, which has been up since before the industrial revolution. So, if the AMO and PDO suggest that the temperatures should be going up, and they are not, where is the mighty effect of carbon dioxide that you claim?



Except that they are. Even according to your graph, temperatures are currently going up while the AMO is in a cooling phase:

clivebest.com

Next?


Tell you what, Buttercup -- Your busted-ass falsified AGW predicts a steady rise in temperatures.


Sez who? Without documentation of this assertion, the rest of your post is a waste of keystrokes.
 
2012-10-03 03:06:18 AM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: In soccer, that's called an "own goal." On Fark, call it a "pwn goal."
... and here I am, playing chess with a pigeon again. Debating warmers on the topic of climate change is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

So, gloat and fly away home. But, the actual term involved is "n00b pwn," n00b.



How does it feel to lose a chess match to a pigeon?
 
Displayed 50 of 178 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report