Not to argue, they are not correct - they have already had to modify their climate models as they didn't exactly work out as they said they would. They are saying they need to study the sun-climate link more as it could be causing an effect - don't know how much simplier I can say it.
Do tell.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose:
They are saying they need to study the sun-climate link more as it could be causing an effect - don't know how much simplier I can say it.
Yes and if you read the article you linked you would see their explanation of how they believe it doesn't make a difference to the man made global Climate change data sets and that the effects are much more localized. Again if you wish to ignore the whole article itself it is YOU who is cherrypicking.
Good science is always open to new findings and refinement, I don't see any difference here. If this study means that the majority of scientists and climate experts change their view about man made climate change please let me know but until then I'll continue to trust the experts not the internet hacks.
Again I'll use the analogy of doctors, if the majority of oncologists were to tell someone they have a cancer and decide on the best course of treatment I say it's best for that person to listen to them and not the janitor who dumps the doctors garbage. Sure there's a chance the doctors could be wrong and the janitor correct but I know who I would listen to if it were me.
Antarctic sea ice has been growing since satellites first began measuring the ice 33 years ago and the sea ice has been above the 33-year average throughout 2012.
"The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures."
"This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years."
Yes and if you read the article you linked you would see their explanation of how they believe it doesn't make a difference to the man made global Climate change data sets and that the effects are much more localized. Again if you wish to ignore the whole article itself it is YOU who is cherrypicking.
Good science is always open to new findings and refinement, I don't see any difference here. If this study means that the majority of scientists and climate experts change their view about man made climate change please let me know but until then I'll continue to trust the experts not the internet hacks.
Again I'll use the analogy of doctors, if the majority of oncologists were to tell someone they have a cancer and decide on the best course of treatment I say it's best for that person to listen to them and not the janitor who dumps the doctors garbage. Sure there's a chance the doctors could be wrong and the janitor correct but I know who I would listen to if it were me.
BELIEVE is the operative word here (unless you are one that 'believes' that the science is settled).
As for your analogy of doctors - because, you know the majority at one time believed the earth was the center of the universe, or how about the majority that once believed the earth was flat, etc - we all know how those turned out. Just saying.
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: As for your "fridge experiment" pressure can (and does) change without moving the fridge to the top of a mountain. You know there is this little invention called a barometer.
You fail to understand the magnitude of what effects humidity. The fluctuation in temperature is the dominant force behind humidity changes compared to the small changes in atmospheric pressure.
The interesting part is you pretend you actually read and understood the study. Another interesting part is you didn't share you found it at a website posted by an unqualified college drop out then later criticize us for being skeptical about what a politically biased college drop out reports. You know why there's a question mark in his blog title? Because it's not a bombshell. It's to give crazy conspiracy theorists hope they're not actually crazy.
This study fails the same illogical ways your "R Squared Correlation" does. As soon as physics is introduced into the equation the entire theory falls apart. This is why climate models are important. They actually incorporate physics.
"The whole “unit root” idea is nothing but a “throw some complicated-looking math at the wall and see what sticks” attempt to refute global warming. Funny thing is, it doesn’t stick. In fact, it’s an embarrassment to those who continue to cling to it. But hey — that’s what they do." Source.
He is right, it is an embarrassment. Guess that's why you've left your "R Squared Correlation" unexplained despite legimate questions being presented on how it completely fails.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Proves my point earlier about "making the data read what you want" - from this article, the computer models have/are being updated since the models were made to show it being warmer than it turned out to be.
I'm going to deny the existence of the universe until you can make a computer model that accurate depicts every single thing that happens. GO!
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: They even now admit that they are including natural variability in the research.
Do you even know what that means?
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: All this despite the rising levels of 'man made' CO2.
You should read original sources instead of political news articles: "However, both versions are consistent in predicting that we will continue to see near-record levels of global temperatures in the next few years. This means temperatures will remain well above the long-term average and we will continue to see temperatures like those which resulted in 2000-2009 being the warmest decade in the instrumental record dating back to 1850." Source.
Originally posted by fierobear: You skipped all the parts where they said the sun could be causing the warming, and went right to the parts where they tried to spin it to save their human caused warming theories.
No he didn't. No where in that report did they attribute a "sun climate link" to the warming anomaly known as "global warming." You just salivate uncontrollably when you realize you can take someone out of context to spread your own disinformation and poorly supported theories.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: You also made the very mistake I KNEW that you or flyinfieros would, trying to focus on wattsupwiththat rather than the actual source of the article, which was linked.
Your source constantly misrepresents actual sources of information. The "worlds most viewed denier website" is run by a politically biased college dropout. That's all anyone needs to know about its seriously lacking credibility.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: That is why I seldom bother to respond to you or him... Useless posts like yours.
You seldom bother with a reply because you can't defend what we expose as complete rubbish.
For instance you still haven't commented on how the "R Squared Correlation" makes sense. You've never acknowledge how PDO has been debunked completely, even by your own cited paper, but you keep repeating that nonsense. No comments on rising severe weather clouds evident again in your own cited paper. And you have yet to acknowledge how badly you rushed to judgement with the "IPCC leak". I really liked Alien Warming, mostly for the fitting 'conspiracy theory' related name, perhaps you could explain that too if you're serious about what you posted on the IPCC 'leak.'
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Antarctic sea ice has been growing since satellites first began measuring the ice 33 years ago and the sea ice has been above the 33-year average throughout 2012.
Try finding a reputable source, not politically biased news articles, and you'll see reality differs with most of what they report.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: As for your analogy of doctors - because, you know the majority at one time believed the earth was the center of the universe, or how about the majority that once believed the earth was flat, etc - we all know how those turned out. Just saying.
You don't realize YOUR position is the modern equivalent of the "Earth being flat" and "Earth is the center of the universe" - you refuse to listen to scientific reasoning - just as people in the past did. They stayed committed to their ignorant dogmatic views that were completely unsubstantiated despite overwhelming evidence.
OK FlyinFieros, explain why you are right and the facts are wrong.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT:
Antarctic sea ice has been growing since satellites first began measuring the ice 33 years ago and the sea ice has been above the 33-year average throughout 2012.
"The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures."
"This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years."
Originally posted by Arns85GT: OK FlyinFieros, explain why you are right and the facts are wrong.
The Daily Mail doesn't report facts. They're obviously biased and politically motivated. You don't see me citing evidence to support my side from Al Gore, NBC, Code Pink, Animal Liberation Front, PETA, or GreenPeace. So try to lean on sources that actually have some merit.
Your inability to distinguish between growing sea ice and shrinking glacier ice has already been discussed.
"No warming in 16 years" debunked here that I addressed here also debunked here that I addressed here. Both links expose how the Daily Mail twists reality and data to fit their agenda.
This is pure genius!!! Even if all the other information in this thread is false and can be disproven, this explanantion of the origin of the thread cannot be refuted!
You don't realize YOUR position is the modern equivalent of the "Earth being flat" and "Earth is the center of the universe" - you refuse to listen to scientific reasoning - just as people in the past did. They stayed committed to their ignorant dogmatic views that were completely unsubstantiated despite overwhelming evidence.
This is pure genius!!! Even if all the other information in this thread is false and can be disproven, this explanantion of the origin of the thread cannot be refuted!
Thank you for proving you are no less a low-life than flyinfieros.
The Daily Mail doesn't report facts. They're obviously biased and politically motivated. You don't see me citing evidence to support my side from Al Gore, NBC, Code Pink, Animal Liberation Front, PETA, or GreenPeace. So try to lean on sources that actually have some merit.
Your inability to distinguish between growing sea ice and shrinking glacier ice has already been discussed.
"No warming in 16 years" debunked here that I addressed here also debunked here that I addressed here. Both links expose how the Daily Mail twists reality and data to fit their agenda.
Alan Carlin, B.S. (California Institute of Technology), PhD (economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), retired senior analyst and manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, former Chairman of the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club (recipient of the Chapter’s Weldon Heald award for conservation work), U.S.A.
and 133 other eminent scientists all agree there has been no Global Warming in the past 16 years.
So you are smarter and better educated and more knowledgeable than this guy? Please give me a break. Publish YOUR name beside your words and take credit for being God's gift to the intelligentsia of the world. Or are you simply going to take anonymous swipes at your betters?
Alan Carlin, B.S. (California Institute of Technology), PhD (economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), retired senior analyst and manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, former Chairman of the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club (recipient of the Chapter’s Weldon Heald award for conservation work), U.S.A.
and 133 other eminent scientists all agree there has been no Global Warming in the past 16 years.
So you are smarter and better educated and more knowledgeable than this guy? Please give me a break. Publish YOUR name beside your words and take credit for being God's gift to the intelligentsia of the world. Or are you simply going to take anonymous swipes at your betters?
Arn
I'm pretty sure I posted the data from the Hadley Center, which is one of the official data sets. I'd repost it, but I'm on my phone.
He thinks he can dismiss what we post because the info is from blog sites, but he ignores the fact that the blog articles are referencing official sources.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Antarctic sea ice has been growing since satellites first began measuring the ice 33 years ago and the sea ice has been above the 33-year average throughout 2012.
"Now there's more ice at South Pole than ever." (So much for global warming thawing Antarctica!) Sea ice extended over 19.44 million square kilometers (7.51 million square miles) "
And yet, just a few weeks after the Forbes article that Arns85GT posted (above), this appeared in Forbes:
Antarctic Temperatures Are Rising Twice As Fast As Previously Predicted
"This study adds to a number of studies this year that have shown that previous predictions of the rate of ice melt at both poles, which are considered “alarmist” in some quarters, were in fact far too conservative. Arctic permafrost is also experiencing faster than predicted melts. Additionally, recent research has also demonstrated that sea levels are rising about 60% faster than previously predicted."
I think that this demonstrates that no single scientific report can be relied upon to either confirm or disprove Global Warming--or whether or not is is caused or amplified by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. It must be corroborated by a multiplicity of scientific studies, using different premises, methods and databases.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-11-2013).]
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: I'm going to deny the existence of the universe until you can make a computer model that accurate depicts every single thing that happens. GO!
Now, why did I think you were going to say that?
Let's recap (going back through some old posts):
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Oh, and because you agree with the manmade argument, these people are obviously not manipulating data???
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: No, they can't "make the data read what they want." The fact you suggest this demonstrates your lack of understanding of the scientific studies that have taken place.
Numbers do not magically change. BEST released their data. BEST released their methodology. BEST released their software.
A key fact you refuse to acknowledge: BEST cannot manipulate data because they exposed to everyone how they arrived at the conclusion. It's like open source science.
quote
Experts cool on global warming: Weather office cuts temperature predictions by 20% in ‘return to humility’
Global warming has stalled and will not raise world temperatures over the next five years, according to a new prediction from the British national weather service.
The updated computer model of the planet’s climate lowers by about 20% an earlier prediction of how much hotter the coming few years will be than the long-term average since 1971.
<snip>
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Proves my point earlier about "making the data read what you want" - from this article, the computer models have/are being updated since the models were made to show it being warmer than it turned out to be.
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: I'm going to deny the existence of the universe until you can make a computer model that accurate depicts every single thing that happens. GO!
So you say "they can't "make the data read what they want."", then it is released that they have to update the computer model as it was predicting something that never happened. Obviously thier software had a problem, which was MISSED by both sides. THEN you basically say that it is ok because no one can "make a computer model that accurate depicts every single thing that happens."
Why don't you just admit it that they screwed up and thier analysis of the "data" was wrong instead of making the excuses, especially when you posted earlier that there is no way that they can be wrong?
Then you take a shot at me telling me to read actual sources.
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: You should read original sources instead of political news articles:
YET you constantly post link to environmentalist blogs (and Wikipedia) yourself and repeatedly say:
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: Try finding a reputable source, not politically biased news articles, and you'll see reality differs with most of what they report.
Yet a person can say that all the blogs and such you post can be said to be "man made global warming biased". Everyone HAS an agenda - is not just one sided.
But in your opinion ANY news article, scientific study, blog, etc that argues against what you believe is the truth is a completely BIASED article and should not be believed.
You should run for office or something in a communist country since you seemingly would like to censor anything that does not agree with your view. Science is about having AN OPEN mind, NOT flat out saying that something is completely biased when it doesn't go along with your thinking.
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: You don't realize YOUR position is the modern equivalent of the "Earth being flat" and "Earth is the center of the universe" - you refuse to listen to scientific reasoning - just as people in the past did. They stayed committed to their ignorant dogmatic views that were completely unsubstantiated despite overwhelming evidence.
You got this wrong - it "WAS THE MAJORITY THAT SAID THE EARTH WAS FLAT" just as you say THE MAJORITY SAY GLOBAL WARMING IS MAN MADE, it was the small guy that bucks the system (like us "deniers") and goes out on a limb and make wild statements against the majority. It is a PROVEN fact that science has been wrong in the past, can be wrong today and I am sure will be wrong in the future (but it can't be according to you). That is the whole point of science to continue to experiment and continue to make new discoveries - but you are basically saying the science is settled and no more studies need to be done. AND if this is true, why are they still continuing to ask for money from the government/etc to continue the study that man is to blame? Especially when this money could just go to cleaning up the enviroment.
As for your stupid little cartoon - remember all the information that you are posting is from the internet as well - so it also must be false. Isn't that exactly what you are inferring (oh, sorry, I got that wrong since it only applies to things that you believe are false).
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 01-11-2013).]
And yet, just a few weeks after the Forbes article that Arns85GT posted (above), this appeared in Forbes:
Antarctic Temperatures Are Rising Twice As Fast As Previously Predicted
"This study adds to a number of studies this year that have shown that previous predictions of the rate of ice melt at both poles, which are considered “alarmist” in some quarters, were in fact far too conservative. Arctic permafrost is also experiencing faster than predicted melts. Additionally, recent research has also demonstrated that sea levels are rising about 60% faster than previously predicted."
I think that this demonstrates that no single scientific report can be relied upon to either confirm or disprove Global Warming--or whether or not is is caused or amplified by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. It must be corroborated by a multiplicity of scientific studies, using different premises, methods and databases.
According to FlyinFieros you can't trust anything they post (Forbes) in reference to Arns85GT's post:
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: Try finding a reputable source, not politically biased news articles, and you'll see reality differs with most of what they report.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A. also says there has been no net Global Warming in the past 16 years.
The International Arctic Research Center? Well well.
Originally posted by fierobear: You just crossed the line, a** h***
Hit too close to home?
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Thank you for proving you are no less a low-life than flyinfieros.
Why don't you take the time to attack my argument first instead of me personally? Or is the harsh reality of your dilapidated argument setting in?
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Alan Carlin, B.S. (California Institute of Technology), PhD (economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), retired senior analyst and manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, former Chairman of the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club (recipient of the Chapter’s Weldon Heald award for conservation work), U.S.A. and 133 other eminent scientists all agree there has been no Global Warming in the past 16 years.
It's their unsubstantiated opinion. There is zero scientific evidence to backup that statement.
Here's three major reasons why.
Ocean heat content, where 90% of the warming is occuring, is still rising. Source.
It's ironic Denier's lean on the HadCRU dataset so heavily but accuse them of manipulating their data ("Climategate"). But we can't expect consistency from conspiracy theorists.
2012 was the warmest year on record for the United States. Source.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: So you are smarter and better educated and more knowledgeable than this guy?
I wouldn't say that. Perhaps less biased and more open minded towards reality. You do know this "declaration" is sponsored by the Heartland Institute don't you?
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Please give me a break.
I haven't got a kit-kat.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Publish YOUR name beside your words and take credit for being God's gift to the intelligentsia of the world. Or are you simply going to take anonymous swipes at your betters?
I'm just the messenger of reality. It's not my fault you take propaganda from biased political interest groups like the Heartland Institute as scientific evidence.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: I'm pretty sure I posted the data from the Hadley Center, which is one of the official data sets. I'd repost it, but I'm on my phone.
You posted Daily Mail graphs that have been completely debunked as fraudulent. No need for you to repost what's already been debunked.
Your excuses for failing to participate in your own thread and to defend your crazy argument are getting routine though.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: He thinks he can dismiss what we post because the info is from blog sites, but he ignores the fact that the blog articles are referencing official sources.
I don't dismiss Anthony Watts because he runs a blog. I dismiss him because he's not qualified. He's NOT a scientist. He's a college drop out who failed as a TV weatherman who blogs as a hobby. He's financially tied to biased interest groups. He constantly reports pseudoscience in order to spread doubt and uncertainty. He has absolutely zero credibility.
COLLEGE DROP OUT vs SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS WITH HARD EVIDENCE.
You would only pick the college drop out if you're after the lifetime achievement award for Denial.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: So you say "they can't "make the data read what they want."", then it is released that they have to update the computer model as it was predicting something that never happened. Obviously thier software had a problem, which was MISSED by both sides. THEN you basically say that it is ok because no one can "make a computer model that accurate depicts every single thing that happens."
Why don't you just admit it that they screwed up and thier analysis of the "data" was wrong instead of making the excuses, especially when you posted earlier that there is no way that they can be wrong?
Moose, once again you perceive everything wrong and demonstrate how little you actually know about the position you hold. Why you continue to stay committed to a position which is unsubstantiated while demonstrating your lack of knowledge of the argument is general eludes me.
You're confused on data vs models and how models actually work.
The BEST data itself cannot be manipulated. Numbers do not magically change. BEST released their data. BEST released their methodology. BEST released their software. A key fact you refuse to acknowledge: BEST cannot manipulate data because they exposed to everyone how they arrived at the conclusion. It's like open source science.
The BEST software is not a climate model. Computer models use the BEST dataset to predict where the temperatures will go. The BEST data only shows where temperatures have gone thus far. Climate models try to predict where temperatures will be in 10, 20, or 30 years.
I do not expect climate models to be correct 100% of the time. You can demonstrate what has happened in the past with a lot more reliability than what will happen in the future. Based on the fact we have warmed nearly 1*C in the last 50 years due to human emissions, and that's only 10% of the over all warming, you can reasonably expect temperatures to continue to increase. Guess what? Temperatures ARE continuing to increase.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Then you take a shot at me telling me to read actual sources.
YET you constantly post link to environmentalist blogs (and Wikipedia) yourself and repeatedly say:
Yet a person can say that all the blogs and such you post can be said to be "man made global warming biased". Everyone HAS an agenda - is not just one sided.
You're absolutely right, my sources are biased because of hard evidence and their inclination to accept reality. Logical people are biased towards reality.
Being biased due to hard evidence is a lot different than being biased based on ignorance.
I cite Wikipedia because they are a good source of information, but I guess they too have an agenda and are part of the "conspiracy to make tons of money from global warming." How crazy can you get...
I tell you to read actual sources of information because the people you get the information from have added their own bias and ignorant perception.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: But in your opinion ANY news article, scientific study, blog, etc that argues against what you believe is the truth is a completely BIASED article and should not be believed.
You should run for office or something in a communist country since you seemingly would like to censor anything that does not agree with your view. Science is about having AN OPEN mind, NOT flat out saying that something is completely biased when it doesn't go along with your thinking.
The only articles I will flat out dismiss are from news agencies. You might sit down for this one: The media doesn't always report factual information. In fact, when it comes to science, they hardly ever report factual information regardless of which way they slide politically.
Everything else I will take the time to debunk prior to declaring it biased. If I missed one you're free to post an example.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: You got this wrong - it "WAS THE MAJORITY THAT SAID THE EARTH WAS FLAT" just as you say THE MAJORITY SAY GLOBAL WARMING IS MAN MADE, it was the small guy that bucks the system (like us "deniers") and goes out on a limb and make wild statements against the majority.
This is perhaps the best example of your warped perception of reality.
The "majority" does not always mean the "majority of scientists."
The "small guy" that bucks the system is always a scientist. Pig farmers are not discovering new particles, physicists are.
It's comical you think you are on the same "small guy" level as Maxwell, Doppler, Ohm, Einstein, and Newton. You are not. You are the "small guy" that holds science back because we have to wait for stragglers to catch up or enough of them to die.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: It is a PROVEN fact that science has been wrong in the past, can be wrong today and I am sure will be wrong in the future (but it can't be according to you).
You draw some pretty radical conclusions when you get frustrated.
I never said science cannot be wrong. Obviously most of what we "know" about the universe is wrong or at best incomplete. Einstein refined Newton's laws to draw a "more complete" and "accurate" picture of gravity. It doesn't mean Newtonian physics is "wrong", if you know how to reason.
I am just more willing to listen to a scientist about particles than pig farmers, the church, or conspiracy theorists. There's nothing wrong with that.
Here's a question for you: What else do you think the scientific consensus is COMPLETELY wrong about? Just global warming? Kind of ironic.
(No offense to pig farmers, I have farm animals myself)
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: That is the whole point of science to continue to experiment and continue to make new discoveries - but you are basically saying the science is settled and no more studies need to be done.
Where did I say "no more studies need to be done?"
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: AND if this is true, why are they still continuing to ask for money from the government/etc to continue the study that man is to blame? Especially when this money could just go to cleaning up the enviroment.
The majority of humans are stragglers way behind in scientific knowledge. It's YOUR side asking for more studies and more evidence because they reject what's currently on the table without disproving it. Trust me, I would much rather spend time and money helping the environment rather than engage in a rhetorical debate.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: As for your stupid little cartoon - remember all the information that you are posting is from the internet as well - so it also must be false. Isn't that exactly what you are inferring
Who could guess the three people who I've had to explain graphs to because they couldn't read them correctly the first or second time are the same three people in this thread supportive of the idea man is not warming the planet.
My cartoon inferred a few things, but what you discuss here isn't one of them. I'm not going to explain a cartoon to you.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: (oh, sorry, I got that wrong since it only applies to things that you believe are false).
Things are not false simply because I "say" they are false, I demonstrate to you how they are false, you're just incapable of perceiving WHY your argument is false because you lack so much basic knowledge - how to read graphs and how rH is calculated for instance. If you haven't spent a good deal of time studying physics you're not going to comprehend this debate at all.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: According to FlyinFieros you can't trust anything they post (Forbes) in reference to Arns85GT's post: So why should this be believed?
Sometimes the author is the source of bias.
Let's compare the authors real quick: Arn's: James Taylor - I am senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute. rinselberg's: Alex Knapp - I've been the Social Media Editor at Forbes since October, 2011. Prior to that, I was a freelance writer and contributor here. On this blog, I focus on futurism, cutting edge technology, and breaking research.
Gee, one of the authors has a job denying the impact man is having on the climate, the other is a freelance writer. Guess which one gets the most points for the capacity to think for themselves.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A. also says there has been no net Global Warming in the past 16 years. The International Arctic Research Center? Well well.
There's no sense debunking the same thing twice in the same reply. What debunks the first one also debunks this one.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 01-15-2013).]
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: This is perhaps the best example of your warped perception of reality.
The "majority" does not always mean the "majority of scientists."
The "small guy" that bucks the system is always a scientist. Pig farmers are not discovering new particles, physicists are.
It's comical you think you are on the same "small guy" level as Maxwell, Doppler, Ohm, Einstein, and Newton. You are not. You are the "small guy" that holds science back because we have to wait for stragglers to catch up or enough of them to die.
Show me ExACtly where I said "majority of scientists." for that matter, please show me where I said I was "on the same "small guy" level as Maxwell, Doppler, etc".
Pig farmers have no need to be "discovering new particles" - Edison was hardly a physicist when he improved the light bulb and other daily used items, nor was Tesla to name a couple - so your point being?
But ok, I'll bite, lets talk about a Nobel prize winning physicist:
quote
Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group's promotion of man-made global warming fears. Climate Depot has obtained the exclusive email Giaever sent titled "I resign from APS" to APS Executive Officer Kate Kirby to announce his formal resignation.
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: I do not expect climate models to be correct 100% of the time. You can demonstrate what has happened in the past with a lot more reliability than what will happen in the future. Based on the fact we have warmed nearly 1*C in the last 50 years due to human emissions, and that's only 10% of the over all warming, you can reasonably expect temperatures to continue to increase. Guess what? Temperatures ARE continuing to increase.
From your link:
quote
The globally-averaged temperature for 2012 marked the 10th warmest year since record keeping began in 1880. It also marked the 36th consecutive year with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average annual temperature was 1976. Including 2012, all 12 years to date in the 21st century (2001–2012) rank among the 14 warmest in the 133-year period of record. Only one year during the 20st century—1998—was warmer than 2012.
If temperatures are continuing to rise, how it is that last year is the "10th warmest year" (should it not be the first to fit that statement)? That is indicating that there have been 9 other years that have been warmer - or should I say the 2012 is cooler than some previous years.
Now let's look at that last sentence, "Only one year during the 20st century—1998—was warmer than 2012." This means that the 8 other "warmest" years are prior to the industrial revolution which is the caused all this CO2.
This "article" "debunked" itself in the first paragraphs.
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: The majority of humans are stragglers way behind in scientific knowledge. It's YOUR side asking for more studies and more evidence because they reject what's currently on the table without disproving it. Trust me, I would much rather spend time and money helping the environment rather than engage in a rhetorical debate.
Um, excuse me, yep, your side is not asking for any money at all.
Here are just a few agencies and their requested funding that they require (all want an increase):
quote
– Funding for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), which coordinates and integrates research over 13 executive branch departments and agencies, would increase 21 percent to $2.6 billion.
– The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) requests $2.2 billion, an increase of 58 percent, for the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS). This would restore climate sensors, advance sea height monitoring, and fund NOAA’s Joint Polar Satellite System (formerly NPOESS).
– NASA requests a 27 percent increase for Earth Science. NASA would accelerate four Decadal Survey missions, initiate one new climate related mission, and re-launch the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO), which would monitor carbon sources and sinks throughout the world.
– The Department of Energy (DOE) request would increase funding for renewable energy (up 37 percent) and energy efficiency (up 12 percent), and eliminate $2.7 billion in subsidies to high emitting industries. Robust funding would continue for Energy Innovation Hubs, Energy Frontier Research Centers, and the Advance Research Projects Agency-Energy.
– The Department of the Interior (DOI) request would substantially increase funding for its Climate Change Adaptation initiative (up 26 percent) and renewable energy programs (up 24 percent).
– The National Science Foundation (NSF) requests $955 million Geosciences Directorate (a 7.4 percent increase)
[ QUOTE ] The globally-averaged temperature for 2012 marked the 10th warmest year since record keeping began in 1880. It also marked the 36th consecutive year with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average annual temperature was 1976. Including 2012, all 12 years to date in the 21st century (2001–2012) rank among the 14 warmest in the 133-year period of record. Only one year during the 20st century—1998—was warmer than 2012. [ /QUOTE ]
If temperatures are continuing to rise, how it is that last year is the "10th warmest year" (should it not be the first to fit that statement)? That is indicating that there have been 9 other years that have been warmer - or should I say the 2012 is cooler than some previous years.
Now let's look at that last sentence, "Only one year during the 20st century—1998—was warmer than 2012." This means that the 8 other "warmest" years are prior to the industrial revolution which is the caused all this CO2.
I have to admit ... your ability to misinterpret the data is impressive.
Hint 1: What about years 2001, 2002 ... 2010, 2011?
Hint 2: Short-term variations are weather. Long-term trends are climate. A single data point can never define a trend.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-16-2013).]
I have to admit ... your ability to misinterpret the data is impressive.
Hint 1: What about years 2001, 2002 ... 2010, 2011?
Hint 2: Short-term variations are weather. Long-term trends are climate. A single data point can never define a trend.
Hey at least I impressed you.
...and apparently I should not be posting when tired, but the point is 2012 is cooler - not the "great warming trend" that has been predicted. (my first sentance still stands). At least I am willing to admit a screw up unlike others that just say "well can't expect it to be 100%".
To bring up the graph I can't read again, it shows a FLAT warming trend - where as the arguement is that CO2 is increasing at an uncontrolled rate, so should the temperature NOT increase? The point here is OBVIOUSLY there are other factors involved and CO2 is not completely to blame.
As for your "Hint 2" the article linked talks about a "133-year period", this is also just a blip on the map when compared to the life span of the earth.
For the record, yes we are warmer now than before, we are still coming out of the last ice age, temperature is bound to increase.
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Show me ExACtly where I said "majority of scientists."
That's what scientific consensus means - the majority of scientists. You replied to newf who was talking about the scientific consensus when you made your "Earth being flat" post.
Anyhow, the majority of Americans do not think man is to blame for global warming: Source.
The majority of Republicans do not even think the Earth is warming: Source.
If it wasn't the majority of scientists who is this majority you were talking about?
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: for that matter, please show me where I said I was "on the same "small guy" level as Maxwell, Doppler, etc".
You claimed "deniers" were the "small guy" that "bucks the system" - as if Denier's would have said "the Earth is round" to "buck the system."
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Pig farmers have no need to be "discovering new particles"
Then the small guy can hardly buck the system if "the system" is science.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Edison was hardly a physicist when he improved the light bulb and other daily used items
Sure, physics wasn't involved at all.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: , nor was Tesla to name a couple - so your point being?
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: If temperatures are continuing to rise, how it is that last year is the "10th warmest year" (should it not be the first to fit that statement)? That is indicating that there have been 9 other years that have been warmer - or should I say the 2012 is cooler than some previous years.
Now let's look at that last sentence, "Only one year during the 20st century—1998—was warmer than 2012." This means that the 8 other "warmest" years are prior to the industrial revolution which is the caused all this CO2.
This "article" "debunked" itself in the first paragraphs.
2012 was the warmest year on record for the United States and 10th globally by NOAA's numbers. It was the 9th warmest year by NASA's numbers.
Here's something that will really make your eye twitch: If you exclude 1998, the 9 warmest years in the 132 year record have ALL occurred since 2000.
"NASA scientists say 2012 was the ninth warmest of any year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. With the exception of 1998, the nine warmest years in the 132-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the hottest years on record." Source.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Um, excuse me, yep, your side is not asking for any money at all. Here are just a few agencies and their requested funding that they require (all want an increase):
I didn't say my side wasn't asking for money to study the effects we are going to have on the climate.
I said it's your side resisting this funding because global warming isn't "better proven."
quote
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: I have to admit ... your ability to misinterpret the data is impressive.
At least he's trying though. A lot of people aren't even doing that.
I'm tempted to start a thread in which each side is not just committed to denying the other sides position, but instead we all have open minds so that we could actually have an intelligent discussion. There are too many "unknown knowns" to make this a black and white topic. I haven't made up my mind 100% and may never do so or by the time I do it may be too late to make a difference. While I haven't made up my mind 100% I am influenced by facts that are proven and conjecture of what those facts mean. To me the preponderance of evidence indicates that the industrial revelution and the use of fossil fuels on a global scale unimaginable just 200 years ago is having an effect. I would never suggest that we go back to what we had 200 years ago, but I truly wish that we were able to see cause and effect before we are overwhelmed by the results. We all need to try and see the big picture rather than resisting any changes in our own lifestyle regardless of the cost to all of us. I wish I had all the answers. I'm just trying to sort through all the information presented, but I think that both sides have presented misinformation. Perhaps one side more than the other. I always try to understand the motives of the presenters as a way of determining the validity of those "facts" presented. It's not a perfect way. Just the best I can do. Good luck with this thread.
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: 2012 was the warmest year on record for the United States and 10th globally by NOAA's numbers. It was the 9th warmest year by NASA's numbers.
Here's something that will really make your eye twitch: If you exclude 1998, the 9 warmest years in the 132 year record have ALL occurred since 2000.
"NASA scientists say 2012 was the ninth warmest of any year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. With the exception of 1998, the nine warmest years in the 132-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the hottest years on record."
I said there was a warming trend, so why wouldn't the last few years be warmer that the previous? Hell I bet the average temp of the 1900's is greater than the 1800's and the 1800's greater than the 1700's - we are still coming out of the last ice age. I am just saying I am not convinced that it is man made (anthropogenic global warming) - as the title states and apparently I have gotten off topic.
BTW - sure there was physics involved with the light bulb, doesn't mean that Edison was one - just like there are physics involved when you start your car to go someplace, doesn't necessarily mean that you are one either. All I am saying is that it doesn't take a physicist to make discoveries as you implied.
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 01-18-2013).]
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: I said there was a warming trend, so why wouldn't the last few years be warmer that the previous?
You said the previous 8 warmest years were before the industrial revolution, which is incorrect. They have all happened in the last 12 years (excluding 1998).
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Hell I bet the average temp of the 1900's is greater than the 1800's and the 1800's greater than the 1700's - we are still coming out of the last ice age.
BEST data shows a rise of 1.5*C in the last 250 years and a .9*C in the last 50 years alone. Meaning prior to the 50 year mark it only warmed .6*C over 200 years. We've exceeded that in the last 50 years alone. The warming is accelerating.
A low starting point such as an "ice age" only means it was a very inconvenient time for the dawn of the industrial revolution. The "natural" wheels for warming were already in motion. Adding greenhouse gasses and soot to the atmosphere definitely encouraged the warming to happen quicker.
The most rapid temperature change in the last 65,000,000 years was 6*C over 20,000 years. We've risen nearly a full 1*C in 50 years alone. "Natural" temperature changes happen but they are VERY slow.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: I am just saying I am not convinced that it is man made (anthropogenic global warming) - as the title states and apparently I have gotten off topic.
If it's not human activity what is it then? Offer an explanation that demonstrates logic behind your position. Simply rejecting human activity as the cause without a better explanation is the Denier prerogative. Show me your evidence.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: BTW - sure there was physics involved with the light bulb, doesn't mean that Edison was one -
Inventors stand on the shoulders of giant physicists.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: just like there are physics involved when you start your car to go someplace, doesn't necessarily mean that you are one either.
Just starting my car doesn't mean I invented something, "bucked the system" or discovered something groundbreaking.
But a physicist did discover everything that allows my car to start. Thanks to Alessandro Volta it has a battery. Thanks to Andre Ampere's force law we know why the electric starter works. BOTH of them physicists.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: All I am saying is that it doesn't take a physicist to make discoveries as you implied.
It does take a physicist to make the discovery and to actually "understand" what's happening. Physics gets credit for everything because it's how everything works. If it is a true science, meaning physical laws can be derived, it can be reduced to physics. Biology, chemistry, geology, astronomy, or any branch of science can be reduced to simple physics.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 01-16-2013).]
FlyinFieros, I congratulate you on your efforts to inject some sanity and reason into this discussion thread.
However I fear your efforts may be in vain.
It seems to me that most people in this discussion are basing their comments on what they choose to believe in rather that what the facts and the science is indicating.
Let's face it most people believe that the world is round. But there are still people who believe that the world is flat, and cannot be dissuaded that they are deceiving themselves.
Hmmm...the carbon tax isn't a new idea to big government liberals. They proposed a "BTU tax" on energy back in 1993. The pundits say that was a major reason the Democrats lost the House in the 1994 election.
Interesting that there was no mention of "global warming" back then. It was all about revenue. Is anyone naive enough to believe that a carbon tax isn't STILL all about revenue, and it is just another retread taxation idea?
Carbon taxes or "cap and trade" has potential to be a useful tool, but is implemented in an obvious attempt to raise government revenue.
Initial allotment of carbon credits shouldn't cost anything. Thus companies with low carbon emissions would actually benefit from such legislation. The program would be revenue neutral.
However the proposals that make companies "buy" carbon credits from the government is an obvious sham.
flyinfieros keeps insisting that "temperatures are continuing to increase":
quote
I do not expect climate models to be correct 100% of the time. You can demonstrate what has happened in the past with a lot more reliability than what will happen in the future. Based on the fact we have warmed nearly 1*C in the last 50 years due to human emissions, and that's only 10% of the over all warming, you can reasonably expect temperatures to continue to increase. Guess what? Temperatures ARE continuing to increase.
Dr. James Hansen and Reto Ruedy of NASA GISS have written a paper (non peer reviewed) with a remarkable admission in it. It is titled Global Temperature Update Through 2012.
Here is the money quote, which pretty much ends the caterwauling from naysayers about global temperature being stalled for the last decade.
The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing.
Gosh, I thought Hansen had claimed that “climate forcings” had overwhelmed natural variability?
In 2003 Hansen wrote a widely distributed (but not peer reviewed) paper called Can We Defuse the Global Warming Time Bomb? in which he argues that human-caused forcings on the climate are now greater than the natural ones, and that this, over a long time period, can cause large climate changes.
As we shall see, the small forces that drove millennial climate changes are now overwhelmed by human forcings.
According to Hansen’s latest essay, apparently not. So much for “da bomb”.
Here are some other interesting excerpts from his recent essay, Bob Tisdale take note:
An update through 2012 of our global analysis reveals 2012 as having practically the same temperature as 2011, significantly lower than the maximum reached in 2010. These short-term global fluctuations are associated principally with natural oscillations of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures summarized in the Nino index in the lower part of the figure. 2012 is nominally the 9th warmest year, but it is indistinguishable in rank with several other years, as shown by the error estimate for comparing nearby years. Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.
The current stand-still of the 5-year running mean global temperature may be largely a consequence of the facr [sic] that the first half of the past 10 years had predominantly El Nino conditions, and the second half had predominantly La Nina conditions.
The approximate stand-still of global temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with little control on particulate air pollution, but quantitative interpretation has been impossible because of the absence of adequate aerosol measurements.
That last part about 1940-1975 is telling, given that we now have a cleaner atmosphere, and less aerosols to reflect sunlight, it goes without saying that more sunlight now reaches the surface. Since GISS is all about the surface temperature, that suggests (to rational thinkers at least) that some portion of the surface temperature rise post 1975 is due to pollution controls being enacted.
flyingfieros continues to quote the BEST Study, with the suggestion that it has settled many climate issues. The problem is, there is no sign that the BEST Study has cleared peer review, let alone being published in ANY scientific journal. One portion of the BEST study has been "provisionally accepted".
quote
They based the "no warming in 16 years" on the HadCRU dataset which only has 3000 stations. The BEST dataset contains 39,000 stations, INCLUDING the HadCRU dataset, and CLEARLY shows warming:
The most recent (July 2012) paper written by the Berkeley Earth team is: A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011 (The Berkeley Earth team commonly refers to this as the “Results” paper)
This paper, in addition to three of the papers posted online in October 2011, have been revised based on input received through the peer review process. The three other papers are:
Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process (commonly referred to as the “Methods” paper) and its appendix Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average Earth Atmospheric Land Surface Temperature and Station Quality in the United States
The final paper has been provisionally accepted (pending the acceptance of the paper on the Averaging process) by JGR Atmospheres, and has not changed significantly since October 2011. It is posted again here for convenience: Decadal Variations in the Global Atmospheric Land Temperatures
Some people think that peer review consists of submitting a paper to a journal and waiting for the anonymous comments of referees. Traditional peer review is much broader than that and much more open. In science, when you have a new result, your first step is to present it to your colleagues by giving presentations, talks at local and international conferences, colloquia, and by sending out "preprints." In fact, every academic department in the sciences had a preprint library where people would read up on the latest results. If they found something to disagree with, they would talk to or write the authors. Preprint libraries were so popular that, if you found someone was not in the office or lab, the first place you would search would be in the preprint library. Recently these rooms have disappeared, their place taken over by the internet. The biggest preprint library in the world now is a website, arXiv.org.
Such traditional and open peer review has many advantages. It usually results in better papers in the archival journals, because the papers are widely examined prior to publication. It does have a disadvantage, however, that journalists can also pick up preprints and report on them before the traditional peer-review process is finished.
Perhaps because of the media picking up on talks and preprints, a few journals made a new rule: they will not publish anything that is distributed as a preprint or that is discussed openly in a meeting or colloquium. This policy has resulted in more attention to several journals, but the restrictive approach had a detrimental effect on the traditional peer review system. Some fields of science, for example String Theory, objected so strongly that they refuse to publish in these journals, and they put all their papers online immediately.
The best alternative would be to have the media hold back and not report preprint material. Unfortunately they refuse to do that. The situation is made more difficult by the fact that many of the media misreport the content of the preprints. For that reason Berkeley Earth has tried to answer the questions given to us by the media, in hopes that our work will be more accurately reported. The two page summary of findings is also meant to help ensure that the media reports accurately reflect the content of our papers.
flyinfieros continues to repeat the fallacy that temperature rise is unprecedented in the last 50 years:
quote
BEST data shows a rise of 1.5*C in the last 250 years and a .9*C in the last 50 years alone. Meaning prior to the 50 year mark it only warmed .6*C over 200 years. We've exceeded that in the last 50 years alone. The warming is accelerating.
Here are links to four peer reviewed and published papers (and one article with references to papers and data sets) with proxies that show that current temperatures are neither unusually high, nor has the rapidity of temperature rise been "unprecedented"
Neither the level nor the rapidity of climate changes are unique to the 20th century
The BEST Study, that flyinfieros quotes ad nausem, is for land temperatures only. It does not cover ocean temperatures, although they claim they are working on it. The oceans cover 70% of the surface of the Earth, so even if the study is correct on land temperatures, ocean temperatures remain an open issue.
It appears that Berkeley Earth's analysis shows a temperature rise greater than others had previously published. Is this so? Can you explain?
Berkeley Earth has not yet begun to analyze ocean temperatures (we hope to do this in the next year), so the plotted data is land only. Land warms more than oceans, so when we include the ocean we expect the total global warming to be less.
We started with the land data for several reasons:
1. It is the data that is most greatly affected by the most contentious issues: data selection bias, urban heat island, and station integrity issues. These are major concerns that we wanted to address.
2. The temperature rise on land is greater than in the oceans, greatly due to the oceans distribution of heat over the mixed layer thereby reducing the temperature rise. Because land keeps the heat mostly on the surface, the land temperature is actually more sensitive to greenhouse gases than is the world temperature.
3. With 1.6 billion measurements, culling land temperature data was a major effort. It made sense to divide the project into two stages.
Carbon taxes or "cap and trade" has potential to be a useful tool, but is implemented in an obvious attempt to raise government revenue.
Initial allotment of carbon credits shouldn't cost anything. Thus companies with low carbon emissions would actually benefit from such legislation. The program would be revenue neutral.
However the proposals that make companies "buy" carbon credits from the government is an obvious sham.
The bottom line is that the cost of EVERYTHING would go up if carbon taxes are implemented. That means that our quality of life and our personal budgets would be reduced. Consider that before becoming an advocate of global warming, because the end game of this is the implementation of taxes on carbon dioxide. This will impact YOU directly, in your wallet.
The bottom line is that the cost of EVERYTHING would go up if carbon taxes are implemented. That means that our quality of life and our personal budgets would be reduced. Consider that before becoming an advocate of global warming, because the end game of this is the implementation of taxes on carbon dioxide. This will impact YOU directly, in your wallet.
That depends on what system you're talking about.
If its a revenue neutral program, prices would only increase for companies with the most emissions, and decrease for the other ones.
I agree that the current "cap and trade" proposals would make everything more expensive, since they force companies to buy fictitious "carbon credits" from the government.
The bottom line is that the cost of EVERYTHING would go up if carbon taxes are implemented. That means that our quality of life and our personal budgets would be reduced. Consider that before becoming an advocate of global warming, because the end game of this is the implementation of taxes on carbon dioxide. This will impact YOU directly, in your wallet.
Yet no matter how you look at it the Carbon Tax boogie man does not change the science.
Originally posted by masospaghetti: That depends on what system you're talking about.
If its a revenue neutral program, prices would only increase for companies with the most emissions, and decrease for the other ones.
If I thought global warming were the problem they claim, I'd have a lot fewer objections to a revenue neutral system. Look at it this way - we condemn "price gougers" who profiteer off of things like plywood and other materials before a hurricane hits, so why aren't people objecting to the profiteering of carbon credits, by anyone, if this is the major planetary emergency they claim?
quote
I agree that the current "cap and trade" proposals would make everything more expensive, since they force companies to buy fictitious "carbon credits" from the government.
And that's the rub. Government sees this as a revenue stream, a new tax that isn't an income tax. But anyone with an IQ above room temperature can figure out that it's a tax that will impact everyone.
My state has already implemented a "cap and trade" system. Governor Brown loved it, thinking it would generate $1 billion in revenue for the state. He wants to use some of that money for our high speed rail boondoggle (will cost more than they estimate, guaranteed).
Luckily, it looks like the state's cap and tax system might end up being a bust, like it has been in Europe. The price of "carbon" is coming in lower than they thought, resulting in FAR less revenue than they anticipated.
But the state is already figuring the anticipated revenue in their budget. They also declared that the state budget problem is solved, but it took the flood of tax money from investors selling assets to avoid the "fiscal cliff" issue, and California's increased taxes on "the rich". But that's another subject.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 01-17-2013).]
Originally posted by Arns85GT: So you are smarter and better educated and more knowledgeable than this guy?
quote
I wouldn't say that. Perhaps less biased and more open minded towards reality. You do know this "declaration" is sponsored by the Heartland Institute don't you?
So you simply dismiss learned and educated scientists who have their positions published in the Financial Post? So what if some organization coordinated their effort to have their voices heard. It does not detract from the veracity of their statement.
Particularly, Syun-Ichi Akasofu is a much regarded scientist.
He has received many awards over many years for outstanding achievements. Here are a few.
1976 - Chapman Medal, Royal Astronomical Society 1977 - The Japan Academy of Sciences Award 1979 - Fellow of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) 1979 - John Adam Fleming Medal, AGU 1980 - Named a Distinguished Alumnus by UAF 1981 - Named one of the "1,000 Most-Cited Contemporary Scientists by Current Contents 1985 - First recipient of the Sydney Chapman Chair professorship, UAF 1985 - Special Lecture for the Emperor of Japan on the aurora (October 3) 1986 - Member of the International Academy of Aeronautics, Paris 1987 - Named one of the "Centennial Alumni" by the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges 1993 - Japan Foreign Minister's Award for Promoting International Relations and Cultural Exchange between Japan and Alaska 1996 - Japan Posts and Telecommunications Minister Award for Contributions to the US-Japan Joint Project on Environmental Science in Alaska 1997 - Edith R. Bullock Prize for Excellence, University of Alaska 1999 - Alaskan of the Year - Denali Award 2002 - Named one of the "World's Most Cited Authors in Space Physics" by Current Contents ISI 2003 - Order of the Sacred Treasures, Gold and Silver Stars by the Emperor of Japan 2011 - European Geosciences Union, Hannes Alfvén Medal
You may want to win your arguement and be able to artfully dodge criticisms in your own mind, but writing off a man of this stature as some tool of some lobby group is just plain insulting. All the scientists who had their names published with the statement in the Financial Post
Were bucking the Democratic administration in the USA, the UN Council and many governments with their hands out to take the money out of the pockets of Americans and every other country in the G-8.
To put it plainly, you are a fool to discredit such a learned gentleman and his associates.
If it's not human activity what is it then? Offer an explanation that demonstrates logic behind your position. Simply rejecting human activity as the cause without a better explanation is the Denier prerogative. Show me your evidence.
DID I SAY DENY (please show me the post) - I said NOT CONVINCED - I can't read charts and apparently you can't just read.
IF YOU WANT AN ANSWER - little green men from space (prove that they are not - let's see the study and paper)...there, now get over yourself.
As for your BEST data - yes it has been misused as I posted, they had to change the model (that used the data) as it turned out not to be correct - falsified the result. I know, in your world that is ok, since they can't be "100% correct".
Any event, back to the regularly scheduled program...
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros:
Sometimes the author is the source of bias.
Let's compare the authors real quick: Arn's: James Taylor - I am senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute. rinselberg's: Alex Knapp - I've been the Social Media Editor at Forbes since October, 2011. Prior to that, I was a freelance writer and contributor here. On this blog, I focus on futurism, cutting edge technology, and breaking research.
Gee, one of the authors has a job denying the impact man is having on the climate, the other is a freelance writer. Guess which one gets the most points for the capacity to think for themselves.
What does it matter? All news articles and blogs are all opinion pieces NO matter where they come from. YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS BIASED AGAINST CERTAIN SOURCES. You say you have an open mind, then stop dismissing certain articles or person because they have an agenda or come from xxx. No one is forcing James Tayor to work at the Heartland Institute, could it be that he has his own opinion and chooses that side? But there you go again simply saying someone can't think for themselves simply because they are aligned with a certain group.
Sure maybe Heartland has an agenda, but you know what? ALL institutions have an agenda, period. If you want to 'debunk' or dismiss an article, please post info and source from a scientific paper or source (preferably one that is newer than said article as progress is made) . Saying it isn't so does not make it so, OR posting info from another opinion piece also does not prove anything - it is just an argument. Who are you to judge which agenda is good or not - it is for all intents and purposes, it's your opinion. There is that saying about opinions, but I will leave it out.
Not saying your opinion is not welcome, but you have been making arguments and dismissing posts based on your and others opinions and blogs that align with yours, yet continuously demand scientific proof from others - what's wrong with this picture? Granted you have posted some articles, and bravo to that.
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: Sure, physics wasn't involved at all.
Again here you are implying I said something - never said that there was no way in hell that physics was not involved - I was simply pointing out that you don't have to be a physicist to make a discovery.
In any event, I am not going to argue anymore about this, just going to stick to the topic and post relevant articles...
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 01-18-2013).]
Abstract: The extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature in the last two millennia: reconstructions of low-frequency variability
B. Christiansen1 and F. C. Ljungqvist2 1Danish Meteorological Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark 2Department of History, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Abstract. We present two new multi-proxy reconstructions of the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere (30–90° N) mean temperature: a two-millennia long reconstruction reaching back to 1 AD and a 500-yr long reconstruction reaching back to 1500 AD. The reconstructions are based on compilations of 32 and 91 proxies, respectively, of which only little more than half pass a screening procedure and are included in the actual reconstructions. The proxies are of different types and of different resolutions (annual, annual-to-decadal, and decadal) but all have previously been shown to relate to local or regional temperature. We use a reconstruction method, LOCal (LOC), that recently has been shown to confidently reproduce low-frequency variability. Confidence intervals are obtained by an ensemble pseudo-proxy method that both estimates the variance and the bias of the reconstructions. The two-millennia long reconstruction shows a well defined Medieval Warm Period, with a peak warming ca. 950–1050 AD reaching 0.6 °C relative to the reference period 1880–1960 AD. The 500-yr long reconstruction confirms previous results obtained with the LOC method applied to a smaller proxy compilation; in particular it shows the Little Ice Age cumulating in 1580–1720 AD with a temperature minimum of −1.0 °C below the reference period. The reconstructed local temperatures, the magnitude of which are subject to wide confidence intervals, show a rather geographically homogeneous Little Ice Age, while more geographical inhomogeneities are found for the Medieval Warm Period. Reconstructions based on different subsets of proxies show only small differences, suggesting that LOC reconstructs 50-yr smoothed extra-tropical NH mean temperatures well and that low-frequency noise in the proxies is a relatively small problem.
