A new look on global warming

Remove all ads!

@amaster, if you read your own link they state that they use a different set of TSI data than the others, also if 1998 is an outlier & should be discounted then all the global alarmists data that uses it to "prove" the 1990's were the hottest decade are invalidated.

another favorite global alarmist talking point "it takes 100 years to get rid of today's co2 emmisions" sorry, not true as shown here:
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm

a few posts(a page or more maybe?) ago someone mentioned who profits from this scare tactics of AGW?
http://abc-7blogs.com/clarke/?p=6

also notice the "error" in the hadley temp graph
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2955
funny, that it is only an error when the temp goes down.

taluntain, i notice you get the most abusive when others offer data to back up there views that disagree with yours. sorry, the website may be yours but that doesn't make your opinion the right one everytime.

 

here you go a link as you like them to a series of graphs & tables showing the ipcc4 prediction was WRONG http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/accounting-for-enso-cochrane-orcutt/

wow you managed to break your own rules, you know #17 "If you have a personal issue, keep it personal. We don't want our forums clogged up with posts specifically for one person, so if it can be handled over PM or e-mail, please handle it privately. "
i simply pointed out you act aggressively towards those who don't agree with you and you respond by trying to attack ,hmmm, lets see my intelligence(or lack thereof as far as you are concerned), my powers of observation & arguementation, etc..
dont worry i will be sending you a PM with how i really feel & as i have said before ban me if you wish

 

AMaster:
Sorry, I can't get that first link to load for some reason (stupid AOL). Is that anywhere else?
As for the statistical outlier, what you had said before was that the 'mean', or the zero-point was a statistical outlier, which is meaningless. 1998 being one is quite meaningful, and yes, the general trend across 1998 does continue to rise, but shortly after 1998, you do see a plateau in the general trend. In the longer-term charts, you can see several more plateaus throughout history, some preceed cooling, some continued warming, but they are marked changes in the trend.

DR:

I would have thought that would be your first hint that you had mis-interpreted my statement. I do, however, understand that emotions can run high in arguements like this, and I will try to be more clear in the future.

Oh, I've never refused to entertain or seek out a scientific explanation for the event, and if I had infinite resources at my disposal, I'm sure I could find one (though I'm also fairly sure it would take a lot of advanced research considering our current understanding of localized weather events). I don't have those resources, however. Good recall, though.

If I had been making the arguement percieved, this is quite true.

:sigh: And here we get back into assumptions. You assume miracles and creation are utterly rediculous because you don't believe, and thus they appear so, but this is not based on evidence, but merely the presence or absence of faith (causing it to swing either way). Now yes, some 'creationists' out there have made quite a number of pattently redicuouls claims, but there is also a great deal of evidence saying it is all plausable. If you are seriously interested, I would suggest any of several books by Dr. Gerald Shroeder. The utterly rediculous claims I was making refered specifically to claims by scientists (many of them well known) that were issued as proven fact yet were based on nothing more than a guess (such as the claim that life could reasonably have formed on earth through the random reaction of chemicals, a process that would statistically take more time than the entire 15+ billion year history of the universe).

Alas, this is true, but my kooks tend to equate, both in knowledge and authority, to your Al Gore, not scientists.

Again, I would equate these people with Al Gore rather than Darwin and Einstein. These people, though influential and public, are not experts on the intellectual issues (translations from ancient Hebrew and Greek, archeology, anthropology, physics, astrophysics, cosmology, etc.). Also, note I didn't criticize Darwin. I respect him a great deal for pressing the point that his was an unproven theory that would only work if the evidence bore it out. It was his immediate successors that began billing evolution as absolute fact.

Again, this is more on line with Al Gore than Einstein, though I do pity you for living in an area with such nuts.

Ah, but when members of his own claimed consensus issue signed reports criticising the consensus (and a fair number of them, as well), I do think that shoots a hole in the consensus. And just because it came through Fox News doesn't change the fact that it linked directly to the subject statement on file with officials.

All in all, from many of you, I've seen assumptions that the sources you don't like can't be trusted. If a story came from Fox News, it must be wrong, or at least twisted. If the scientists doing the research were funded by Big Oil, or own stock in Big Oil, or the research is cited on a site that Big Oil has invested in, then the researchers must be bogus hacks who have sold their credibility for a few dollars. You cast all their credentials, their degrees, and their years of proven service to the scientific community, many of them in at-the-time controversial topics, out the window because you see Big Oil. What I don't see you doing is the same kind of questioning when your sources turn out to be heavily invested financially, ideologically, or political, in their position. I fail to see how this makes them any more credible.

Aldeth:

That only works if their funding actually changed during the course of their research. Also, if you assume this, then that leaves everyone in the entire arguement biassed.

T2:

Quite right, but it can be hard to distinguish between the credible researchers and the extremists and sell-outs without an in-depth look at the history of those researchers.

Tal:

Considering your previous posts, my statements, though generalizations, don't really seem to be grossly generalized assumptions. You do seem to have discounted all research connected to Big Oil out of hand, and I have never until now heard you distinguish between them and credible critics.

No, but you are posting research by people associated with GreenPeace, other radical groups, or who have simply expressed radical beliefs or issued completely erronious statements on this issue before.

So long as you consider the 'interested parties' on both sides of the isle, I don't have any problem with this statement.

Now here's where things get interesting. The line between 'unbiased research' and that funded by Big Oil is obvious, but you (or perhaps others) have repeatedly criticized other researchers as kooks, fringe elements, and mavericks. Where is the line between these researchers and the credable critics?

 

Well, I dunno if that precise paper is anywhere else, but you can find rebuttals in numerous locations. Here's the Stanford Solar Center's page. If you actually want to read that particular article, I could download it and email you a copy.

For '98, once again, a wonderful example of the perils of textual communication. I meant specifically '98, not the mean. At any rate, I'm not seeing what might be described as a plateau when I look at the data. In a few years you might be able to make that argument, but not yet.

 

peer reviewed
Taluntain, in case you missed it this post i linked to
http://www.cgfi.org/wp-content/uplo...ts-have-found-the-1500-year-climate-cycle.pdf
IT has over 200 peer reviewed & published articles supporting the "climate skeptics" side. you must have missed that

 

Tal:

Deal.

Ok, define 'overly convenient'. Any research that supports a position you don't like could be called 'overly convenient', but that hardly makes it questionable. Research directly contradicting other research may be (i.e. looking at the same data and coming to a wildly different conclusion or the like), but that's where peer reviewing is supposed to come in. With that in mind, does Big Oil funded, peer-reviewed research that contradicts other research count as valid, invalid, or questionable to you?

Now, this is the kind of thing that I hate when scientists say it. Things like 'X must be true' or 'X is almost certainly true' without proof, therefore let's base our decision off that. There are some very deep pockets in the GW movement.

Then explain to me why so many of the papers and scientists I've been citing are not in the US. Also, this entirely depends on your definition of 'radical'. If you mean going against the common public perception, then you're right. If you mean so sure of or well invested in their opinion that they are willing to 'bend the truth', then I see far more evidence of radical activity among the believers than among the sceptics. Additionally, what kind of TV do you watch? Fox is the only news channel I've seen for years willing to run news stories on the sceptic camp (other than bashing propaganda campaigns, that is).

And asside from the fact that the 'evil' Big Oil is on one side, I have yet to see any evidence that the sceptics are backed more by other interests than hard science. Also, I'm guessing you meant:

but, considering the begining of this post, I'll leave it to you to correct or elaborate.

Now here's where I think a lot of our confusion comes from. You see, all the research I've cited from the beginning of this topic was peer reviewed. In fact, half the point of this topic was to show that Drew's "no peer-reviewed research in the past X years has disagreed with man-made global warming" wasn't valid (the other half was to show that the IPCC report was not a scientific consensus). We started talking about generalities of research, however, and I think that's where the confusion comes from.

Tal, you seem to have assumed (though I don't know if you have reasons for it or not) a great deal in terms of the balance of the two sides and the credibility of the scientists on each. I would like to point out that, generally speaking, the sceptic scientists publishing peer-reviewed papers are better credentialled with more years of service than the believer scientists. Do you have any reasoning to back up your apparent premise of the unbalanced nature of the bias?

AMaster:

The problem with this is that it doesn't relate to the research I was talking about. The research I was talking about was looking not at solar output or sun-spot activity, but at the magnetic activity. These are linked, but are far from a 1:1 comparison. The magnetic activity is important because it is what controls the solar flares and particle emissions that have been shown to seed cloud formation, an undeniably large factor in the planet's temperature. This came up with a 76% correlation between changes in magnetic activity in the time recorded and planetary temperature change. No one here is denying that the greenhouse effect is preserving the bulk of the actual planet's temperature, but rather what causes change. This is an issue because (so far as I have seen) there has been no confirmation of the complex theory of CO2 forcing on the greenhouse effect. Without this feedback in the climate models, none of them show any statistically significant change in the greenhouse effect. I would only bother with the other paper if it talks about these issues. If so, I would love to read it.

There's a peak in '98 and then it drops significantly right after, then it comes up again and just seems to be hovering there for the past several years. The only other spots like this that I see on that graph are where the trend changes direction.

I'd like to ask all the GW believers out there a few questions now, this dealing more with the consequences than the methods of global warming. How many of you are familiar with (or believe in, I know there are some GW believers that deny it happened) the Medieval Warming Period?

New Tal Post (curse your ninja-fast posting skills):

Well, I couldn't get the link to open again (curse AOL, too). From your description of it, though, it does sound like a legitimate scientific paper. Scientists don't link to web sites in their paper after all, they cite the work and author. That all depends on the format it's presented in, though. The name is no issue to complain about unless the authors then fail to support such a title. The selection of a few pieces from the cited papers is, again, not at all uncommon and, if done properly, the researchers in question would have nothing to complain about. You would have to look at the original research to know if it was being properly cited. As for why they put the list together, I'm quite sure it was to make a point to support their view. The question is which was fitted to which, the view to the research or the research to the view. If you're going to go with the latter, you had better be able to support it.

 

It does speak to those issues, in fact. PM me your email if ye wants it.

 

taluntain, i noticed that neither you or any of the other global alarmists have said anything about this post: http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm which was printed in the european science and enviroment forum.
As most(if not all) global alarmist stats are based on it taking co2 100years to breakdown this slaps those down completely.

So,taluntain, from reading your post only those studies that agree with your POV are actually peer reviewed actual articles? wow, thats a lot of hubris for one person

P.S. for anyone who saw al gore on 60 minutes
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2008/03/joe_bastardi_responds_to_gores.html

P.P.S. just because: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/the-sloppy-science-of-global-warming/

[Warning regarding the use of labels pending. -Tal]

 

The consequences? How about Black Death? How's that for a consequence? Disease spreads better in warmer climates. Consequences! How about malaria in Europe! How about famine? How about drought?

Don't try to make it sound like the warm period in the middle ages was a happy time without adverse effects. Bugging bad rhetorics...

 

OK, I can't take it anymore, because I've seen each one used about 20 times in the last page. There is no such word as "rediculous". If there was, I guess it would be defined as "to be diculous again". "Ridiculous", however, is a word, and it would actually make sense in the context it was used.

In a similar vein, while there technically is a word "sceptic" it is the archaic version of the current accepted spelling of "skeptic". We now return to our regularly scheduled ranting.

I'm a chemist. I work for the US government. I do funding proposals. Let's just say I've seen how this works, and I'm not entirely uneducated on the subject at hand concerning research funding.

 

Tal:

I'm afraid I have to agree with Martaug, here. Filtering research based on conclusions guarantees you'll see the conclusion you want, but it doesn't mean that it accurately represents reality.

I don't have any hard data on this, but from how you've worded your posts, it doesn't sound like you have any, either. Is that a mistake?

I hear a lot of 'probably's coming from you. Now, I'll admit there's more published research in support of global warming than against it, but do you have any actual data on that ratio? Also, the vast majority of the GW research I've seen is based on climate models, and that all seems bunk to me (as I have said).

Would you care to support such a broad, sweeping statement?

Sorry, I misinterpreted the ratios.

Considering the talks we've had before about bias in the system, you can't necessarily fault the sceptics for reviewing each other. The difference I see is that the sceptics review both sides, whereas most of the believers review only their own. As for debunking, it all depends on which researchers you believe. I feel we've debunked most of your stuff, you feel you've debunked most of ours. The difference is that who discards what research.

I've seen a few news articles on it (some doing a very good statistical analysis of the data), but I can't seem to find any links atm.

Actually, I think you'd see the data going the other way around. It tends to be the younger generation that is willing to twist facts and go to the highest bidder. I'm talking broadly in general, here, not specific to researchers.

Thanks for fixing the link, Tal. I'm afraid I have to completely disagree with your analysis, however. Those are fully cited research papers (what you seem to consider "selective quoting" was in fact the titles of their papers) with a list of the researchers involved and their associated organizations. Also, while the full research papers are generally not available without a subscription, you can get the abstracts online.

I think the point was that it shows extreme (and previously recognized) bias in the history of global warming research. Because it is talking about history to the date of writing (and because these same assumptions are still used today) the date it was written doesn't matter much.

Iku:

Umm, those actually weren't due to the Medieval Warming Period, but rather the Little Ice Age that followed it. The Medieval Warming Period brought a mass surplus of food and a burgeoning European civilization. My point is that the planet (or at least Greenland, Europe, Asia, and northern Africa) was substantially warmer then than it is now. If specied such as polar bears survived then, they should survive now (unless there has been secondary habitat destruction, in which case I blame the habitat destruction, not the warming). Additionally, significant portions of the world that are supposed to flood were occupied at that time (and not flooded). Of course, we don't have data on many other areas (Americas, for example) so we can't say for sure. The other point is that this occured without any known significant CO2 contribution, thus natural forces can certainly (and easily) cause such temperatures.

 

[] Aldeth, I hope you're prepared for the inevitable corrections to your posts which follow such comments.[/]

 

I am. I'm sure I spell things wrong all the time. However, most of my grammar and spelling errors are due to typos (in that I know how the word is spelled, but I hit the wrong key on keyboard while I was typing it). The ones I have listed are instances where I believe the person thought he was spelling the words correctly. If the roles were reversed, I'd rather have someone point out I was consistently spelling something wrong than to repeat the mistake again and again.