307 replies to this topic

[Br Cornelius]

regeneratia, on 30 September 2012 - 08:52 PM, said:

My thoughts on that pdf, btw. If they are recalculating the old research on the oldest hottest spot on earth, maybe the research in the pdf needs to be reassessed as well.

The point of that paper is not that it made a specific prediction which has been shown to be not totally accurate. The point is that the role of CO2 in climate was well understood over a hundred years ago, and this was derived on empirical evidence and first principles physics/chemistry.  It would take a very convincing argument to discredit this connection between climate and atmospheric CO2 at this stage and the DENIERS have failed repeatedly to make such a case despite over a decade of trying.

Br Cornelius

[Br Cornelius]

You should spend a little time educating yourself as to what Agenda 21 actually is and how an international treaty actually works.

Br Cornelius

[regeneratia]

I don't really think they were factual errors. And you assume I need to have some sort of credibility. Credibility here is a scam. Credibility is not controllable, because there are always people like you that, no matter what the research would indicate, will always take a stance of dubious slant. I have no interest whatsoever in crediblity that someone else dispenses.

I don't believe I made any mistakes and you are the only one saying that I have. And I am not really all that interested in real discussion with you because your mind is made up, while I respect the fact that you have that stance. You do not afford me the same respect, and thus the discussion will never ever take place on the terms that YOU alone are making entirely without my input.

I have had quite a bit of science behind me as well, which is why I appreciate going daily go to research release sites.

And you are NOT a scientist if you cannot take an objective look at the data. There are scientists, as we all know, that cook the data. Are you one of those scientists? I certianly wonder about it. A scientist is objective, first and foremost. I don't read objectivity in your posts. Is it there?

If there is research from 100 years ago that has to be reassessed due to math inaccuracies, it stands to reason that many resarch issuances made at that time will have to be reassessed, including the pdf posted here. I have yet to read it. And when I do, I doubt I reflect to you that I have. I answer to no one, least of all, you.

Br Cornelius, on 30 September 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

Regeneratia, When you are capable of acknowledging that you have made a factual error,  such as you did with your claims about the ice age and the planetary warming around the solar system, you will have shown that you are here to learn from your mistakes and then a real discussion can begin. If you can acknowledge that you are mistaken in the evidence you are basing your overall position on - it would then be credible to believe that you might be persuaded that your overall position is wrong.
Until that time you need no help in making yourself look ridiculous.

By the way I am a scientist and have researched climate science in an informed but informal way for over 5years now. I started out very much like yourself, a sceptic, but the more I read the more I realized that the science is more than sound.

Br Cornelius

Edited by regeneratia, 01 October 2012 - 06:22 AM.

[regeneratia]

Br Cornelius, on 30 September 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

You should spend a little time educating yourself as to what Agenda 21 actually is and how an international treaty actually works.

Br Cornelius

You really are into attack, aren't you? I person cannot have a say if it opposes you. You and people like you are the very reason why this site is not a discussion site, but merely an outlet for flamers, those like yourself.

Lay off. You are starting to appear ... hmmm, let's let the other decide for themselves.

[Br Cornelius]

Facts are not actually open to opinion - they are debatable on there own terms and as such they are either right or wrong or not yet decided. My opinion has nothing to do with it - at all. My position is based upon the facts. I pointed out at least two of your factual errors and would like you to explain how those factual errors have a baring on your overall position.

Do not assume that I have not looked at the evidence in some detail. What I have done as well is look at each denialist arguing point (which you have referenced without supporting evidence) and decided on its likelyhood based on the supporting evidence. All fail to make any sort of credible case. The climate scientist I have read all make a coherent and increasingly robust set of interlocking arguments which leave me in absolutely no doubt of the role of CO2 and man in climate change. The same cannot be said of the incoherent and conflicting set of ideas espoused by the denialists.

You should look into what a scientific debate is before trying to engage in one.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 01 October 2012 - 08:35 AM.

[Br Cornelius]

regeneratia, on 01 October 2012 - 06:24 AM, said:

You really are into attack, aren't you? I person cannot have a say if it opposes you. You and people like you are the very reason why this site is not a discussion site, but merely an outlet for flamers, those like yourself.

Lay off. You are starting to appear ... hmmm, let's let the other decide for themselves.

What exactly is an international treaty. Ultimately who has responsibility for enforcing an international treaty.
You will find it is national Governments who form, debate and police international treaties.
National Governments have the right to ignore international treaties and to withdraw from them without notice.

In the case of Agenda 21 it is a treaty which sets out guidelines as to how planning can be carried out in a sustainable way. The UN or any international body has no right under it to enforce certain behaviours from its signatories.

It has been in effect for over 20yrs and I think you will find that gradually planning guidance is slowly coming into line with its ideas - where it suits the interests of the signitory nations - this is the way with all international treaties.

It doesn't represent some big bad agenda of the UN to grab national sovereignty.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1o29]

MID, on 30 September 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

You're saying that man caused global warming?

Absolutely.

Quote

Please.  The idea is ludicrous, and unsupportable.

Maybe if you'd make a small effort to educate yourself on the topic, you wouldn't sound so ridiculous.  Don't be so d-----d lazy.
Doug

[Br Cornelius]

Doug1o29, on 01 October 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

Absolutely.

Maybe if you'd make a small effort to educate yourself on the topic, you wouldn't sound so ridiculous.  Don't be so d-----d lazy.
Doug

Even a cursory bit of research into the history of CFC's will show that MIDs arguing position, that man could never influence the climate, will show how off the ball he really is. Let us not forgot also that CFC's did their nasty work at concentrations about a thousandth of that of current CO2 levels.

Of course  I have found MID is very shy of entering into a discussion of the actual science.

Br Cornelius

[regeneratia]

In a technical and research sense, facts cannot be found on this site. We can only get reports and opinions.
A fact is something you can see, touch and expeience first person. I seriously doubt many of us here are positioned to be able to experience and ascertain facts. However, reports are things that are said to have happened, said to be considered to be fact by someone else who may have or may not have experienced the original copy of pdfs, and so on.

And of course, we all know what opinions are. Sometimes opinions are mistaken for fact or report, but that is not the case.

To be safe, I disclaim all things I write, with no pretense whatsoever that I am repeating facts. I do however link to reports.

I think it is important with regards to anthropomorphic influences on the environment that we are only getting reports and opinions. They are not proof of fact.

Again, I contend that I sit on the fence regarding climate change and man's influence on it. I have always believed in the cycles of the sun. And the sun's influence on climate continues to be the heaviest. I do however agree with the remedies to anthropomorphic climate change for far different reasons.
http://www.redorbit....jection-092912/
Sun Unleashes Benign Coronal Mass Ejection,


http://www.redorbit....ves-sun-092812/
Shockwaves From Sun Helped To Shape Solar System

I keep up with the events of the sun here: http://www.solarham.net/ They seem to be far faster at reporting than NOAA.


For some reason, there is a lot of questionable need to convince me otherwise. I can not be influenced via this forum.

Edited by regeneratia, 03 October 2012 - 01:52 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

regeneratia, on 03 October 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

For some reason, there is a lot of questionable need to convince me otherwise. I can not be influenced via this forum.

An inability to admit that you have made a mistake in your beliefs is the very essence of a closed mind.
If you don't want to enter into a discussion of facts do not be surprised when others are - and they point out your errors. The audience is not just you and falsehoods unchallenged propagate like a plague.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1o29]

regeneratia, on 03 October 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

In a technical and research sense, facts cannot be found on this site. We can only get reports and opinions.

This is no surprise.

Quote

A fact is something you can see, touch and expeience first person. I seriously doubt many of us here are positioned to be able to experience and ascertain facts.

That would depend on the "facts."  I have physical possession of the entire core collection that produced the Ouachita Chronology (I was the one who wrote that "report;"  publication pending.).  My "report" is a peer-reviewed research article.  I have personally examined the original cores from the McCurtain County, Lake Winona, Hot Springs and Drury House Chronologies, the data from which is available at NASA's tree ring website.  The "facts" derived from these are lists of ring-width measurements and observations of microscopic wood anatomy, such as fire scars, frost rings and weather-induced false rings.  My article is merely descriptive of the chronology.  It summarizes the quality of the dataset and does not attempt any analyses.  Are these "facts?"

Two additional papers I am now working on will analyze that data to determine a means of identifying major winter storms from the forest's growth response.  That involves some statistical analyses and interpretation.  The method I developed works with 85 to 100% accuracy, but does not actually get to 100% (almost, but not quite).  Are these "facts?"

One of those papers will be a tree-ring record of severe storms and some droughts going back to 1750.  This was Choctaw territory at that time.  France still claimed it, but the Choctaws had possession of the land.  Some of the storms I have identified match up with Indian legends, such as the "Resting Summer" of 1855, the "Noahkian Flood" of 1862, the "Snow Winter" of 1881 and the great storm of 1886.  The more-recent ones match up with Weather Bureau and National Weather Service data.  And there are many storms I cannot match to any record, mostly because that far back, there are no records.  Are these "facts?"  At any rate, my records are more complete and before 1959, more accurate than the National Weather Sevice.  Again, these will be peer-reviewed papers and will be submitted for review this fall.

Quote

However, reports are things that are said to have happened, said to be considered to be fact by someone else who may have or may not have experienced the original copy of pdfs, and so on.

I do not have direct experience of "the Mother of All El Ninos" which occurred in 1791 and 1792, but they show up in my tree-ring records.  But I can look at the tree rings affected and see the result (The widest rings in the whole chronology.).  The important thing in tree ring research is that somewhere somebody has the original cores and you can go back to those and double-check his work.  Also, you can go into the woods, increment borer in hand, and collect your own sample.  The work can be replicated if someone is so inclined.

Also, you can compare your results with what other people are getting.  Don't put all your faith in one paper.  Dave Stahle (tree ring and climate researher) reports that 1833 was the wettest year on record for the American South.  That's not what my rings show:  I show 1791 and 1792 tied for that honor; I show 1833 as a perfectly-ordinary year.  Why the difference?  Speculation:  maybe it's because my datasets come from farther west, on the edge of the Great Plains.  This location may be more sensitive to El Nino effects.  Further research will be needed to determine the cause.  Some graduate student has his work cut out for him.

Quote

And of course, we all know what opinions are. Sometimes opinions are mistaken for fact or report, but that is not the case.

That's why we post our sources.  In research, only peer-reviewed material is acceptable (Well, I once referred to a comment in an unjuried book by a distinguished researcher.).  Not even a poster presented at a professional meeting is acceptable because it is not peer-reviewed (But a peer-reviewed extended abstract based on that poster is acceptable.).

Quote

To be safe, I disclaim all things I write, with no pretense whatsoever that I am repeating facts. I do however link to reports.

The links you have posted are to popular-literature sites. Those don't cut it in research.

You will notice that most research articles are loaded with caveats.  That's because we never know Absolute Truth.  However tiny the risk of error, it is always there and something we must live with.  This is so well known that even when it is not expressed, it is assumed.

Quote

I think it is important with regards to anthropomorphic influences on the environment that we are only getting reports and opinions. They are not proof of fact.

Research papers are the best information available.  Most are written in the format:  This is what I did.  This is what I observed.  This is what I think is the cause.  They do not actually say what Ultimate Truth may be.  It is very obvious what the author's opinion is, but the reader must make up his own mind.  If he's wrong, he then takes personal responsibility for the mistake; you can't blame it on the author you're quoting.

And there is no such thing as "proof" in science.  All you will ever get is science's best current understanding.  That understanding is tentative pending the outcome of future studies.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PROOF.

Quote

Again, I contend that I sit on the fence regarding climate change and man's influence on it. I have always believed in the cycles of the sun. And the sun's influence on climate continues to be the heaviest. I do however agree with the remedies to anthropomorphic climate change for far different reasons.
http://www.redorbit....jection-092912/
Sun Unleashes Benign Coronal Mass Ejection,


http://www.redorbit....ves-sun-092812/
Shockwaves From Sun Helped To Shape Solar System

I keep up with the events of the sun here: http://www.solarham.net/ They seem to be far faster at reporting than NOAA.

That's because they are more willing to accept mistakes than NOAA is.  It takes time to check your material and some people aren't willing to take the time.

Quote

For some reason, there is a lot of questionable need to convince me otherwise. I can not be influenced via this forum.

Junk these sites (the ones you posted, as well as UM).  Read the research.  Do your own research.  Then make up your own mind.  That's how it's supposed to be done.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 03 October 2012 - 05:23 PM.

[MID]

Br Cornelius, on 01 October 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

Even a cursory bit of research into the history of CFC's will show that MIDs arguing position, that man could never influence the climate, will show how off the ball he really is. Let us not forgot also that CFC's did their nasty work at concentrations about a thousandth of that of current CO2 levels.

Of course  I have found MID is very shy of entering into a discussion of the actual science.

Br Cornelius

Actually, what you have found is that MID long ago trashed  arguments supporting man-made global warming.  the very idea that the microscopic presence of man on the surface of this world--a world that is fully capable of cleaning itself up nicely, and does so annually...multiple times, a world that can destroy population centers in a day--could be influenced by the puny resence of man on the planet's surface, and his activities--is as ludicrous as the idea that man will change the rotation of the planet, or the character of it's climate, by it's puny actions!

It's just that when people like you encounter people like me, and others, who know things, you demean them, dress them down, and tell them they're wrong.

The only problem is, people like me have very little time for people who are like you....people who don't recognize the politically-driven agenda that populates the global warming mentality

The only problem you actually have is this:

You CAN'T MAKE ME FEEL BAD.  I know what I'm talking about.  You don't.

Therefore, I say to you, and those like you:

Believe what you want!  I prefer to know things.  There's a difference.
Several decades from now, people will be laughing at you, and Al Gore, just like they were laughing at all the ice agers a while back.   A couple decades make a huge difference in general peception.

I don't care about your cause at all.  Wasting my time on a other detailed response would be stupid.  It's been done.  It won't make you go away.  It should've, but your belief is strionger than the knowledge of people who specialize in the field....here anyway.

You're just irritated because you now know there are others with me, and they're becoming more vocal here.
You have a hard time with that, which is fully understandable...

[Doug1o29]

MID, on 03 October 2012 - 10:09 PM, said:

Actually, what you have found is that MID long ago trashed  arguments supporting man-made global warming.

I must have missed that one.  Could you repost your evidence so we can all get a good look at it?

Just what alternative explanations do you have for increasing CO2, increasing temperature and miriad human environmental impacts?

Quote

the very idea that the microscopic presence of man on the surface of this world--a world that is fully capable of cleaning itself up nicely, and does so annually...multiple times, a world that can destroy population centers in a day--could be influenced by the puny resence of man on the planet's surface, and his activities--is as ludicrous as the idea that man will change the rotation of the planet, or the character of it's climate, by it's puny actions!

Do you have something with which to support your wild-eyed claim?  I say "wild-eyed claim" because without a hypothesis, supporting evidence and tests, that is all you have.

Quote

It's just that when people like you encounter people like me, and others, who know things, you demean them, dress them down, and tell them they're wrong.

If you actually know something about climate, please share it.  Right now, you are the one trying to dress down people, tell them they're wrong and "trash" the theory without presenting anything that supports your ideas, or even makes it seem like you know what the issues are.

Quote

The only problem is, people like me have very little time for people who are like you....people who don't recognize the politically-driven agenda that populates the global warming mentality

I think this one cuts both ways.  I am really tired of spending a lot of time looking up references for people who don't even read them and could easily find the articles themselves.

Quote

Several decades from now, people will be laughing at you, and Al Gore, just like they were laughing at all the ice agers a while back.   A couple decades make a huge difference in general peception.

If you actually knew what you are talking about, you'd know that Al Gore is not a climate scientist.  He hasn't discovered anything.  He has never published a research paper.  He got a Nobel Prize for a PowerPoint and hasn't done anything since then.  He's history, an irrelevant footnote.

And about that ice age business back in the 60s and 70s:  no such thing appeared in any scientific journal that I am aware of.  It was entirely made up by popular press writers who misunderstood the science.  The entire dip in temps lasted less than fifteen years, half the time needed to register as a change in climate.

Quote

I don't care about your cause at all.  Wasting my time on a other detailed response would be stupid.  It's been done.  It won't make you go away.  It should've, but your belief is strionger than the knowledge of people who specialize in the field....here anyway.

Which of the climate sciences do you specialize in?

MID, I'd like to see you post some references.  If they're refereed, I promise to read them.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 03 October 2012 - 11:47 PM.

[Doug1o29]

regeneratia, on 30 September 2012 - 07:31 PM, said:

Weird: Wichita Temps Jump 20 Degrees At Midnight
Read more: http://www.kmbc.com/...l#ixzz1OoDGFlBD

If you're interested in sudden temperature changes, Oklahoma City set both its all-time high and all-time low on the same day:  November 11, 1911.  It was caused by the arrival of a blue norther.  I don't recall the temperature run, but it was more than 80 degrees.

As someone who has worked with these old records, I would guess that somebody forgot to read the thermometer for a day or two, then tried to wing it.  It isn't hard to figure out when someone is goofing off.  Two examples:  The Cold Springs, Arkansas record has a lot of precip measurements that end in a multiple of 0.05".  Somebody thought careful readings were too much effort.  If you igore this detail, however, the readings correlate with other nearby stations, so he (or she) was reading the gauge.

The temperature and precip readings at Hee Mountain, Oklahoma are missing during planting and harvesting seasons.  Also, the record high and record low temps are missing (determined by comparison with other nearby stations).  The guy was a farmer and had other work to do during parts of the year.  Also, when it was really hot, or really cold, he just didn't feel like going out.  At Hee Mountain, the records are so bad that they are unusable.  Mena and Booneville, Arkansas have unbroken records over more than 30 years each.  Mena has two six-month gaps in 115 years.  There are good records and bad records.

Quote

Calculations of 100 years ago need to be reassessed.
Public release date: 13-Sep-2012
http://www.eurekaler...u-wht091112.php
Arizona State University
World’s hottest temperature cools a bit
Team of meteorologists overturn a reading from 90 years ago and make Death Valley the holder of the world’s hottest temperature
IMAGE: This is a drawing of the Six-Bellini thermometer. Image supplied by Paolo Brenni, President of the Scientific Instrument Commission, and courtesy of Library of the Observatorio Astronomico Di Palermo, Gisuseppe…
Click here for more information.

The sun indeed has some influence on the earth.
Electromagnetic Pulse Could Knock Out U.S. Power Grid
Sept. 13, 2012
By Kedar Pavgi
http://www.nti.org/g...-us-power-grid/
Nextgov.com

Press Release 11-059
Antarctic Icebergs Play a Previously Unknown Role in Global Carbon Cycle, Climate
Passage of icebergs through surface waters changes their physical and biological characteristics
http://nsf.gov/news/...g=NSF&from=news
Tour “Iceberg Alley” in this photo gallery.
Credit and Larger Version
March 25, 2011
View the photo gallery “A Trip Down Iceberg Alley.”
In a finding that has global implications for climate research, scientists have discovered that when icebergs cool and dilute the seas through which they pass for days, they also raise chlorophyll levels in the water that may in turn increase carbon dioxide absorption in the Southern Ocean.

Shall I stop?

You do realize that none of these overturn global warming, don't you?
Doug

[Doug1o29]

regeneratia, on 01 October 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

And you are NOT a scientist if you cannot take an objective look at the data. There are scientists, as we all know, that cook the data. Are you one of those scientists? I certianly wonder about it. A scientist is objective, first and foremost. I don't read objectivity in your posts. Is it there?

I have been accused on UM (not by you) of not being objective because I did not accept a weird idea that some denialist came up with.  What that person didn't realize is that I had studied that very topic several years earlier and reached the opposite conclusion.  We keep hearing the same invalid arguments over and over and then get accused of bot being objective when we reject them for the fortieth time.  Denialists really need to come up with something to support their ideas.

Ever tried to "cook the books" in a way that won't be detected?  Gregor Mendel - remember him? - the monk with the pea garden who discovered genetics - cooked his books.  It was a probability study that caught him - his own numbers betrayed him.  He was right, but for the wrong reasons.  Just for entertainment:  off the top of your head try to write down a list of 100 random numbers between one and ten.  Bet you can't do it.  PM me with your list and I'll test it for you - or test it yourself.  I have several dozen statistical tests to detect dry labbing by my field crews.
Doug