Bell-fan: First off, not a denier.

Denying Climate change is about as stupid as denying that the sun rises.

That said. I'm pretty damn dubious about the Humancentric part of it. But hey, I keep an open mind.

The problem I have with this "if it's group think it must be RIGHT" mentality.

To whit, I fall back on how the anthropological community celebrated Margaret Mead and how everyone that disagreed with her was ostracized as an unscientific wacko.

If you didn't agree with her... you were labeled a kook and a fool... in much the way that scientists today seem super eager to do to anyone that doesn't agree with human caused climate change.

On Margaret Mead's "Coming of Age in Samoa", Dr. Martin Orans, Emeritus Professor of Anthropology at the University of California, Riverside, opens his book "Not Even Wrong" (Harvard University Press, 1983), thusly;

"Occasionally a message carried by the media
finds an audience so eager to receive it that it
is willing to suspend all critical judgment and
adopt the message as its own. So it was with
Margaret Mead's celebrated 'Coming of Age in
Samoa.'"

That right there pretty much sums up the same thing I notice about Climate change.
That we have this overly receptive audience that just wants to lap up the idea that humans are the be all and end all of the climate change issue and that people are suspending critical judgement.

Even today ... after her work was proven to be bunk... and that the girls she interviewed for her Saoma work admitted they'd fed her a pack of lies because they simply told her what she wanted to hear... even today there are still people in the anthropological community that continue to teach her findings as gospel truth.

Scientific groups and people are made up of human beings, and human beings have a history of playing favorites with pet theories and ignoring evidence unless it fits their agenda.

So I'm skeptical


Your problem is that the humanocentric (or anthropogenic, if you will) part of it isn't based on 'group think'. It's based on evidence. Evidence that you appear to have ignored (or you wouldn't think the claim was based on group think and a suspension of critical judgment).

So what's your agenda?

Seriously: we have been to the moon, can split atoms, and can carry the Smithsonian Archives in one hand. Should we really be making most of our energy by digging shiat up and burning it, like cavemen?
Seriously.

Hopefully soon it will be warm enough to RE-settle Greenland. Just as it was over a thousand years ago. The winery owners in England will be particularly happy.
Global cooling and warming has been happening far longer than man has been around. Just as the next ice age was coming forty years ago AGW is a tactic used to gain power and money.

The name, greenhouse effect is unfortunate, for a real greenhouse does not behave as the atmosphere does. The primary mechanism keeping the air warm in a real greenhouse is the suppression of convection (the exchange of air between the inside and outside). Thus, a real greenhouse does act like a blanket to prevent bubbles of warm air from being carried away from the surface. As we have seen, this is not how the atmosphere keeps the Earth's surface warm. Indeed, the atmosphere facilitates rather than suppresses convection.

One sometimes hears the comparison between the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere (not in real greenhouses) and the interior of a parked car which has been left in the summer Sun with its windows rolled up. This comparison is as phony as is the comparison to real greenhouses. Again, keeping the windows closed merely suppresses convection.

Whether the topic is a real greenhouse or a car, one still hears the old saw that each stays warm because visible radiation (light) can pass through the windows, and infrared radiation cannot. Actually, it has been known for the better part of a century that this has very little bearing on the issue.

Finally,
What does one tell one's students?
The correct explanation (as offered above) is remarkably simple and easy to understand, namely:
The surface of the Earth is warmer than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere because it receives energy from two sources: the Sun and the atmosphere.

But don't ever teach nonsense by claiming that the radiation is trapped, or that the atmosphere reradiates, or that the atmosphere behaves as a greenhouse (or parked car), or that greenhouse gases behave as a blanket.


http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html

Holy sheepdip!

I didn't know that German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer was such a mover and shaker as to be an economist in the third working group as to work on *mitigation* (not your fight, Nicky) of ACC. 

Basically, the guy has nothing to do with the science. He's an economist working on mitigation, which is pretty much destined to be political. But he said something off-the-cuff that certain people liked, so...

randomjsa: I'm also still perplexed that we have had snow as recently as... This year. Since climate change alarmists said we would have none by this time.

------------------

Jesus, the stupid burns in here.

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie: You pretend to be some sort of scientist. That is the game you are playing.

Again, ha. Now, back to the discussion, please tell the world why past data is unsuitable for climate models, by stating how the data fundamentally poisons the models, and how this data's uncertainty can never be built in.

Hint: see the graphs on this page and explain how the uncertainty in early data will compromise the model.



Modeling is what you do when you want to see if going on with real experimentation is worthwhile. It is not proof of anything but proof of concept. If you want to trash the world economy over that, go ahead.



Your ignorance is showing again. If you cannot bother to even so much as open Wikipedia on the subject of data modeling, let alone climate modeling, then what weight should anyone give your still unfounded concerns?


Proxies that have a margin of error that is greater than the actual change of temperature makes for bad science.

And this cannot be introduced into the models because? Again, do your homework.

Why do you pretend to be some sort of a scientist when you ask so many stupid questions. You compound that stupidity by referring to wikipedia.

I know what modeling is and your remarks show that you do not.



Anyone who reads your definition of modeling should do more reading on their own, because you do data modeling a vast disservice with your narrow opinion.


Let me walk you through this little problem with the data. According to the "scientists" the temperatures starting rising in the 1850s. How can they make that statement when the margin of data prior to 1850 is larger than the actual change since then? Do you not see a problem here?


Ok, this is the last time aim going to repeat this point, oh-you-who -claims-to-understand-modeling. Uncertainty is built into the model. Did you bother to view the link I provided to illustrate how uncertainty in data is useful in aggregate?

These "s ...

When you started all of this, it was kinda funny. Now it is just pathetic. You offer up nothing but your opinion and your opinion is worthless. You are starting to bore me. You obviously know nothing and you do not even do a good job pretending that you do.

You duck everything that I tell you because you cannot provide an intelligent response. Do not be surprised if I start to ignore you.

chuckyoufarlie:

But don't ever teach nonsense by claiming that the radiation is trapped, or that the atmosphere reradiates, or that the atmosphere behaves as a greenhouse (or parked car), or that greenhouse gases behave as a blanket.

Woo yah... Crazy talk. It's not like anyone could prove that with a grade school science project, or even see the blue effects of selective absorption by going swimming. 

Nicky, just because you can't understand something, doesn't mean everyone else is as dumb as you are.

turnerdude69: Ambitwistor: omeganuepsilon: To be fair, we're still within tolerance of that +/- 1 C, so your pics are...pointless.

"Within tolerance"? What does that mean?
Ambitwistor: turnerdude69: you trust too much...Skeptics think....you follow

You're not a skeptic. A real skeptic would examine the evidence and the body of existing knowledge. "But everybody could be wrong!" is intellectual laziness masquerading as skepticism. You have no idea what the evidence is supporting our current theories of the causes of glacial cycles, or how the temperature record is constructed, let alone how good or bad they are.

Everybody is not wrong...Where did I say that???You are putting words in my mouth now..

I would not have this opinion if I had not looked at everything I can and still do ..

Fine. Given the geological evidence in favor of the Milankovitch theory of ice ages, what is the basis for your educated opinion?

I trust more in geological and fossil records than I do in the made up interpretations of ice cores and tree ring data that is just plain flawed...

Ice cores are far better proxies than anything you'll find in the deep time geological record. They actually record the atmospheric content at the time. Deep time proxies, like ocean cores, are less direct. Tree rings are not great proxies, but are also not highly relevant; the climate over millennial timescales is weakly responding and weakly forced, so there isn't much you can conclude even with good proxies.

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie:
So you are saying that a paper debunked comments made originally by the IPCC. That is interesting.


The paper deflates over-inflated concerns on your part. If the IPCC wrung its hands over old climate data, then, yea, fark hem. What, you think I should kiss the butt of any group instead of paying attention to numerous studies and being able to view, measure and model data myself?

Here's a challenge to you. Get the temperature data that the Berkeley group has, and show how it cannot be used to model the data as presented in their publications. In other words Specifically by naming actual data points and model parameters tell us where they are going wrong.

If you cannot do that, and all you have is some vague unfounded opinion, then what are YOU doing here?

Wow, you talk a big game.

The temperature data is based on stations that were not installed until the 1980s. Do you deny that?

The temperature data is based on stations that were in isolated areas that have now been developed. Do you deny that?

The temperature data prior to 1850 is based on proxy data. Do you deny that?

The Vostok Ice Core Samples indicate that increases in CO2 have always followed temperature increases. Do you deny that?

Recent data suggests CO2 increased first, actually ...Have some data.

Btw, the ice core lags are also based on models, but you know that, right? And you would never champion uses of models on data on one hand while dismissing the same data and modeling on the other, yes?

Here's another study on modeling the CO2 lag.

why model something that is illustrated clearly in the ice core samples? Sounds like somebody is trying to blow smoke.

Oh for the love of...

Ok, you're just joking now, right?

what makes you an expert on anything? There truly is no reason to model ice core ...

You are operating under the assumption that I believe anything that you post. You gave me your opinion and that is worthless.

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie:

Are you aware that if one removes the stations installed since the 1980s from the data, the warmest period in the USA is in the 1930s and not today? While that is not world wide, it implies something significant.


Why remove any data? You can build it into the model. Boobies.

You could, but the scientists at the CRU did not. You really are a tool.

jso2897: Seriously: we have been to the moon, can split atoms, and can carry the Smithsonian Archives in one hand. Should we really be making most of our energy by digging shiat up and burning it, like cavemen?
Seriously.

I think the funnier thing is that people have no problem accepting the fact that scientists have managed to send us to the moon, split the atom and shrink the entire Smithsonian archive into the palm of a hand, but if it's snowing on their front lawn they balk at the notion that a couple hundreds scientists can properly read some thermometers. If these idiots think global warming isn't happening because it still snows at their house why don't they think the moon landing was a hoax because of the new moon phase?

I don't know if climate change deniers are the dumbest people on Earth, but if they're not, they're pretty damn close.

omeganuepsilon: Ambitwistor: A real skeptic would examine the evidence and the body of existing knowledge.

No. A real skeptic may state doubts, but is not committed to getting a degree in the sciences needed to be convinced.

If you're going to dismiss an entire field of science by default, without knowing anything about it, and you're not willing to inform yourself, then you're not a real skeptic. You're just being contrary.

If you're an accountant, garbage man, medical doctor, whatever, you're allowed to be a skeptic that does not have the time nor the means to really study the details.

If you don't know anything, your "skepticism" isn't based on anything except your own prejudices. So what is your basis of dismissing an entire field of science?

For example, what are your professional credentials that we should take your analysis of all of the facts as the only possible outcome?

I'm not talking about my analysis, I'm talking about the scientific community's analysis, that people don't know anything about yet still feel qualified to dismiss.

Keizer_Ghidorah: "chuckufarlie: Keizer_Ghidorah: You know, natural or man-made, maybe we could come up with ways to reduce the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere and ways to remove the excess already there, instead of screaming and flinging blame everywhere.

You know, just in case. Wouldn't want our only home in the universe to go to shiat.

The IPCC has a solution. They want to close down all of the industry in the Western World and distribute it to the developing countries. And they have identified India and China are developing countries. Does that sound like good planning to you?

Well, here's an idea: come up with SOME OTHER SOLUTIONS! You don't abandon the entire concept because one solution is obviously stupid.

Filters? CO2 converters? More trees? Green technology? Renewable resources? A combination of the above? Anything?"


How about...Entertaining the radical possibility that a couple of degrees' worth of change over a century or two won't necessarily bring about the f'ing apocalypse?

Nobody seems to have tried that approach yet...for some reason any discussion of climate change is loaded with the certainty of a scorched-earth endgame, when in reality it's a slow process that in all likelihood the human race will be quite able to continue adapting to one day at a time.

But no -- any hint of the slightest temperature change MUST mean that we have to scramble our jets, declare an emergency, and SHUT. DOWN. EVERYTHING. or else we'll turn into Venus and fry in hellfire before our grandkids graduate high school.

This is why it's a political issue as well as a scientific one. It's not because oil executives value their salaries over the human race. It's not because Republicans hate the earth. It's not because ignoramuses reject science. It's because people justifiably question the value of trying to solve an environmental problem of uncertain and greatly hyperbolized consequences by creating a series of definitively catastrophic (but questionably effective) economic ones in its place.

Vegan Meat Popsicle: jso2897: Seriously: we have been to the moon, can split atoms, and can carry the Smithsonian Archives in one hand. Should we really be making most of our energy by digging shiat up and burning it, like cavemen?
Seriously.

I think the funnier thing is that people have no problem accepting the fact that scientists have managed to send us to the moon, split the atom and shrink the entire Smithsonian archive into the palm of a hand, but if it's snowing on their front lawn they balk at the notion that a couple hundreds scientists can properly read some thermometers. If these idiots think global warming isn't happening because it still snows at their house why don't they think the moon landing was a hoax because of the new moon phase?

I don't know if climate change deniers are the dumbest people on Earth, but if they're not, they're pretty damn close.

It seems that you might be dumber than anybody here. There is more to this than reading thermometers. There is more to this than global warming. The cause of the warming is the issue.

turnerdude69: Really?? Cause CERN has already called Einsteins theory of relativity to be questioned...Turns out there are things like neutrinos that are faster than the speed of light... So even things like E=mc2 might not be fact...

Like most of what you've posted here, this too is incorrect. Neutrinos do not travel faster than the speed of light, and E=mc^2 still holds in every experiment ever performed.

chuckufarlie:

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie:

Are you aware that if one removes the stations installed since the 1980s from the data, the warmest period in the USA is in the 1930s and not today? While that is not world wide, it implies something significant.

Why remove any data? You can build it into the model. Boobies.

You could, but the scientists at the CRU did not. You really are a tool.

Really? Explain that...

Far be it from me to think you're just spouting talking points you know nothing about, but... 

You're a known liar.

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: You are operating under the assumption that I believe anything that you post. You gave me your opinion and that is worthless.

You are operating under the assumption that I believe anything that you post. You gave me your opinion and that is worthless

What part of that do you not understand? Are some of the words too big? Did I type too fast?

24 out of 14k studies reject the idea of AWG?

Interesting, since it only takes 1 to disprove something.

Learn the scientific method, morans. Nothing is ever proven, only disproven.

The Theory of Evolution will collapse if if someone ever finds, "God was here" scrawled on some DNA or something. Only takes one piece of evidence, and there's plenty that disprove most "AWG is realz!" theories.

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie:

Are you aware that if one removes the stations installed since the 1980s from the data, the warmest period in the USA is in the 1930s and not today? While that is not world wide, it implies something significant.


Why remove any data? You can build it into the model. Boobies.

You could, but the scientists at the CRU did not. You really are a tool.

And....Boobies to you too..

I have spent enough time dealing with a moron like you pretending to know something. Consider yourself and your boobies ignored. You are obviously an idiot.

Ed Grubermann: rotsky: I'll always have, in the back of my mind, the fact that some scientists faked their data a couple years ago.

I'm not an idiot, it just made me skeptical.

/Pet peeve peve.

/Pet peve

Also, the last time I saw him come into a thread, say something stupid, and come back much much later, a meme was created using his name. One would imagine that he'd learn.

Guess naught.

maxheck: Not to say that this has anything to do with anyone in particular who's repeatedly managed to out themselves...

[i49.tinypic.com image 640x510]

Nice. I've had CuF farkied as "nicksteel alt" for quite a long time now.

chuckufarlie: http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html


From your link:

Does the atmosphere trap radiation?

No, the atmosphere absorbs radiation emitted by the Earth. But, upon being absorbed, the radiation has ceased to exist by having been transformed into the kinetic and potential energy of the molecules. The atmosphere cannot be said to have succeeded in trapping something that has ceased to exist.

WTF???

Electromagnetic radiation = energy.
Absorbed electromagnetic radiation = absorbed energy.

Claiming that the energy content of infrared radiation isn't trapped because the photons themselves cease to exist is Olympic circus sideshow-level semantic gymnastics contortionism.

chuckufarlie: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie:

Are you aware that if one removes the stations installed since the 1980s from the data, the warmest period in the USA is in the 1930s and not today? While that is not world wide, it implies something significant.


Why remove any data? You can build it into the model. Boobies.

You could, but the scientists at the CRU did not. You really are a tool.

And....Boobies to you too..

I have spent enough time dealing with a moron like you pretending to know something. Consider yourself and your boobies ignored. You are obviously an idiot.


Some people ignore trolls.
Some people ignore assholes.
chuckufarlie ignores facts.

randomjsa: I'm still looking for the "hundreds of thousands" of climate change refuges the climate change alarmists said we would have by 2010.

Where are all these people that made such bold claims in the past? They've reformed their views and looked for the next big thing.

Puts me in mind of the Rapture people, the Y2K people, and now the 2012 people. Yes, while some have learned the error of their ways, it's not all of them.

Not saying GW people are that way, but you know a lot of nutjobs do ascribe to it, maybe even the Y2K and Rapture nutjobs themselves.

I read the posts here and I see some of the same mouth-frothing madness that I heard from those people in past years, and indeed in similar threads with creationists, vaccine-autism people, staunch republican conservatives, etc.

It really puts me in mind of those things, because it's not an up front provable thing(IE requires a lot of data and education), and not really all that disprovable either. GW movement as a whole has so many sorts of followers and theories..yet we consider it an argument with only 2 sides. They all ally together in threads such as these. From simple Believers to those with Google/Wiki Degrees to the bare handful of people who actually work in these specific fields(if that...).

That's why, to me, it has all the same vibe of a thread chock full of religious people, reviling and villifying anyone who dares ask a question. Even if they are right as a party, it's more on faith than any real intelligence when you look at the lion's share of individuals. It's like calling the lottery winner a pre-cog.

I think that's the base problem a lot of people have with the article, why majority doesn't necessarily have the right to do the things they do. That same "we all used to think the earth was flat" observation is met with derision against the concept even as they themselves prove it.

The problem is that the matter is much like actual politics. There are so many ways to display the data, indeed, even gather the data, that anyone can set out to make it look like X or Y, and come away with moderate success. The peer review part of it isn't much better. Of course anyone with similar findings is going to approve, or it makes their papers look suspect, do people really think that people want to analyze and prove something wrong that they themselves agree with?

I want to be impressed. I want to see scientists that set out to prove that human impact could be negligible, not because he's paid to, or because it would seriously MAKE his career, but because of what he sees in the broad data. I want to see that study. I want to see that guy see the facts in detail, and then be like, "Well, maybe there's something here".

I want to see a GW paper that is vaguely the same but quite different in details and methodology get ripped by shreds by people who support GW theory. They can't all be exactly the same and unflawed, can they?

As an actual skeptic and most certainly not a denier, nothing would please me more. It would restore a lot of lost faith in the system in an age when the studies and models are bought and paid for by some agenda or another.

This whole overwhelming majority thing, for those reasons, looks a bit suspect.

Farking Canuck: I hope all the deniers here are watching carefully at how chuckufarlie/nicksteel/etc and Sevenizgudget their asses handed to them every thread.

Yeah, I cite the last 10+ years of data straight from NASA's website, and even give the URL so people can check...and somehow I'm going to "get my ass handed to me".

Gee, I wonder what would happen if I posted something OTHER THAN, you know, the actual worldwide average surface temperature data from NASA for the last 10+ years.

But feel free to hand me my ass some more while I post the, you know, actual data straight from the NASA data table I linked.

DrPainMD: For the millionth time: nobody, and I mean nobody, is denying that the climate is changing. The climate has always, and will always, be changing.


Then perhaps you'd like to take a crack at answering my earlier question.

SevenizGud: Farking Canuck: I hope all the deniers here are watching carefully at how chuckufarlie/nicksteel/etc and Sevenizgudget their asses handed to them every thread.

Yeah, I cite the last 10+ years of data straight from NASA's website, and even give the URL so people can check...and somehow I'm going to "get my ass handed to me".

Gee, I wonder what would happen if I posted something OTHER THAN, you know, the actual worldwide average surface temperature data from NASA for the last 10+ years.

But feel free to hand me my ass some more while I post the, you know, actual data straight from the NASA data table I linked.


Ten years? It used to be thirteen.

Why move the goalposts unless you're losing the game?

common sense is an oxymoron: No matter how many times they're shot down, they just keep repeating the same tired arguments, except that sevenizgud did change the starting point for his "there is no warming" graph once the actual mean temperature exceeded his previous cherry-picked starting point.

You lying piece of shiat. I changed my starting point because it was a link to woodfortrees, which is now defunct, not because the analysis is any different.

But feel free to keep lying your lying lies through your lying liars teeth you lying liar of lies.

Ambitwistor: omeganuepsilon: Ambitwistor: A real skeptic would examine the evidence and the body of existing knowledge.

No. A real skeptic may state doubts, but is not committed to getting a degree in the sciences needed to be convinced.

If you're going to dismiss an entire field of science by default, without knowing anything about it, and you're not willing to inform yourself, then you're not a real skeptic. You're just being contrary.

Who is dismissing? Who said anything about dismissing?

It sounds as if you want to Believe I'm a flat out denier, operating on Belief of my own.
tsk tsk tsk

Eddie Adams from Torrance: chuckufarlie: The surface of the Earth is warmer than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere because it receives energy from two sources: the Sun and the atmosphere.

You mean like on the moon where temperatures rise up to 250 degrees?

great, now you are arguing with a college professor. Did you see the link or are you a moron.

Tell the other half of the story, what happens on the dark side of the moon, temperaturewise.

common sense is an oxymoron: Why move the goalposts unless you're losing the game?

Uhm, no goalposts were moved. The same HADCRUT3 analysis that I showed previously still holds exactly as it did before.

The only difference is the woodfortrees graphics generator is down because the website is now defunct.

But please, do pretend that the data is now different, and suggest ulterior motive instead of, you know, knowing what the fark you are talking about.

common sense is an oxymoron: chuckufarlie: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie:

Are you aware that if one removes the stations installed since the 1980s from the data, the warmest period in the USA is in the 1930s and not today? While that is not world wide, it implies something significant.


Why remove any data? You can build it into the model. Boobies.

You could, but the scientists at the CRU did not. You really are a tool.

And....Boobies to you too..

I have spent enough time dealing with a moron like you pretending to know something. Consider yourself and your boobies ignored. You are obviously an idiot.


Some people ignore trolls.
Some people ignore assholes.
chuckufarlie ignores facts.

you would not recognize a fact if it fell on your head.

Science has long been twisted to meet certain agendas and to make money for others. Any time where a human is the source of or translator of information, the information will be biased in some regard. Hook, line, and sinker, for the masses.

SevenizGud: common sense is an oxymoron: No matter how many times they're shot down, they just keep repeating the same tired arguments, except that sevenizgud did change the starting point for his "there is no warming" graph once the actual mean temperature exceeded his previous cherry-picked starting point.

You lying piece of shiat. I changed my starting point because it was a link to woodfortrees, which is now defunct, not because the analysis is any different.

But feel free to keep lying your lying lies through your lying liars teeth you lying liar of lies.


Touchy this evening, ain't we, ya cherry-pickin' loser.