307 replies to this topic

[Doug1o29]

regeneratia, on 04 October 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

I think eurekalert is a good site. Been using it since the mid-ninties. Alphagalileo, I don't check that often. And I do see agendas in things like Red Orbit, new Scienetist, and Scienfitic American, so I no longer subscribe to the latter two.

You might want to take care that what you perceive as "an agenda" isn't just a publication whose opinion happens to differ from your own agenda.  It's an easy mistake to make.
Doug

[MID]

regeneratia, on 05 October 2012 - 05:42 AM, said:

I have been using "anthropomorphic" wrong. My intent was to say "anthropogenic". I got the two words confused. I sure hope you didn't and spotted my repeated mistake right away. No one corrected me on it. If they did, I most likely didn't read their post. Hmmm! Self-correction is necessary.

oh boy.
Well, there's a reasonable direction for this thread to take...into linguistics and English vocabulary!
Apology accepted, however, I suspect that the reason no one corrected your use is very likely because very few people actually know these two words, nor could imagine what they mean.

Here guys:

Anthropomorphic means to ascribe human attributes to a being or a thing that isn't human.
And...
Anthropogenic means that the thing so described is invented by, or originated through men.

I thing they're both ridiculously  unused and complex terms, especially in the context of climate change.


I do have a suggestion..

Instead of mis-using anthropomorphic and needing to substitute anthropogenic for a prior incorrect use, just say what they mean in this thread's context,  simply:


MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING.

Did I hear a heavy sigh of relief?

Man-made is only 7 letters, 8 spaces. It's also 2 syllables!



The two biggies average 14  letters, and each one has 5 syllables!   Ugh.  think of the typing...    No need for two lengthy complicated terms when that'll do just fine, I think.
Think of it!   The biggies are 2 1/2 times the physical size of the simple usage of man-made.  There's also 75% more talking and writing involved in those two terms!

they all describe a pseudo-scientific game played by people with an agenda to gain power and have control over you by the intyroduction of fear and guilt into your life.

But look!
If we want to say, anthropogenic global warming, or refer to anthropogenic climate change, by all means, have at it.


It won't make it any more accurate or believable by  using the vast term.

The fact is,  declaring such a thing, is like declaring that I,--a man who today saw a beautiful cloud that looked like my grandfather and I said that the cloud has grand pa's  wisdom and character, and that I could feel him in that cloud, that it was him(!)--is like me saying that stuff and expecting people to believe it! When in reality, I saw a cloud, a beautiful cold front cumulus at maybe 5,000 feet up.

But wait!
Maybe if I called what I was doing anthropogenic cloud gazing, it makes it more believable, or enticing a subject to entertain????




just playing, folks!

Edited by MID, 05 October 2012 - 08:50 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

Just like man made CFC's never caused the ozone hole - because we're all to ity-bity to change the planet

Br Cornelius

[Doug1o29]

MID, on 05 October 2012 - 08:49 PM, said:

It won't make it any more accurate or believable by  using the vast term.

Still haven't found a scientific article refuting "anthropogenic global warming," eh?
Doug

[MID]

Doug1o29, on 05 October 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

Still haven't found a scientific article refuting "anthropogenic global warming," eh?
Doug

Yea, plenty...but it's been posted here, and I don't frankly care if you ever find reason to search again. In another couple years, I think the same nonsense discussion will be going on...and that'll continue until we're all laughing at you, long after Greenland was supposed to melt and drop into the ocean!!!

I'm not that concerned about it.
Why?

Because, it dioesn't exist.

It's not my job to prove it doesn't.  It's your job to prove it does, and that doesn't involve demeaning those who undrstand the truth

[regeneratia]

Doug1o29, on 05 October 2012 - 12:44 PM, said:

These two publications are not scientific journals.  They are popular press magazines.  Their material is not juried.  They may fairly be considered editorials.  And I let my subscription to Scientific American lapse.  I will not be renewing it.

I used to get New Scientist, too.  I don't any more and I really don't remember why.  Apparently I found their material so exciting I just forgot to renew.
Doug

Here ya go:
A. Kääb et al. Contrasting patterns of early twenty-first-century glacier mass change in the Himalayas. Nature, Vol. 488, August 21, 2012, p. 495. doi: 10.1038/nature11324
http://www.nature.co...ature11324.html

Predigested:
http://www.sciencene...ss_than_thought
Himalayan melt may be less than thought
Satellite data suggest modest net ice loss
By Allison Bohac
October 6th, 2012; Vol.182 #7 (p. 18)

[Br Cornelius]

I am starting to doubt that MID has any scientific training at all since he shows no respect for the scientific method - or any understanding of how to enter into a scientific debate.
Alternatively he could just be lazy.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

Doug1o29, on 05 October 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

The same way we measure global temps during modern times:  gridded spatially-corrected averages.  There is a problem with very ancient proxies, like ice cores:  there aren't very many of them and they don't give coverage everywhere.  In that case, develop a model that uses ice core data from modern times to predict modern temperate zone temps.  Then extend that to ancient times.  It's done with instrumental data and with tree ring data.  There's no reason it shouldn't work with ice core data.
Doug

what is the empirical basis for the statement "the sudden and dramatic uptick in recent times"
there is no basis based on measurement. the "uptick" he refers to occurs regularly all the time and at a similar rate throughout the record. if you will only accept a model/simulation based study to hindcast historical temperatures(based on a set of disputed assumptions) and that study has not yet been done then you have no scientific basis to accept the underlined assertion above, let alone expect others to accept it.
you called me a liar for presenting icecore data which contradicts the assertion, yet you don't present any data yourself to show why it is inaccurate. it is evident you are happy with the assertion "the sudden and dramatic uptick in recent times" since you defended it and did not challenge it, so where is the data that led you to believe it was true. all I have seen in this thread is personal attacks on scientists and calling them liars. no data, just rhetorical assertions, which is a microcosm of the wider debate and the reason why the warmists lost.

[Doug1o29]

regeneratia, on 06 October 2012 - 01:11 AM, said:

Here ya go:
A. Kääb et al. Contrasting patterns of early twenty-first-century glacier mass change in the Himalayas. Nature, Vol. 488, August 21, 2012, p. 495. doi: 10.1038/nature11324
http://www.nature.co...ature11324.html

Predigested:
http://www.sciencene...ss_than_thought
Himalayan melt may be less than thought
Satellite data suggest modest net ice loss
By Allison Bohac
October 6th, 2012; Vol.182 #7 (p. 18)

Very good.  You've been doing some work.
Doug

[MID]

Little Fish, on 06 October 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

what is the empirical basis for the statement "the sudden and dramatic uptick in recent times"
there is no basis based on measurement. the "uptick" he refers to occurs regularly all the time and at a similar rate throughout the record. if you will only accept a model/simulation based study to hindcast historical temperatures(based on a set of disputed assumptions) and that study has not yet been done then you have no scientific basis to accept the underlined assertion above, let alone expect others to accept it.
you called me a liar for presenting icecore data which contradicts the assertion, yet you don't present any data yourself to show why it is inaccurate. it is evident you are happy with the assertion "the sudden and dramatic uptick in recent times" since you defended it and did not challenge it, so where is the data that led you to believe it was true. all I have seen in this thread is personal attacks on scientists and calling them liars. no data, just rhetorical assertions, which is a microcosm of the wider debate and the reason why the warmists lost.

Simply put:

Prove your contention...

[Br Cornelius]

Simple;

http://www.newscient...oven-wrong.html



That certainly looks like a dramatic upclick to me.

And the article explains why complaints against the hockey stick graph are groundless.

Evidence from glacial shrinkage;

Quote

The relation between changes in modern glaciers, not including the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, and their climatic environment is investigated to shed light on paleoglacier evidence of past climate change and for projecting the effects of future climate warming on cold regions of the world. Loss of glacier volume has been more or less continuous since the 19th century, but it is not a simple adjustment to the end of an “anomalous” Little Ice Age. We address the 1961–1997 period, which provides the most observational data on volume changes. These data show trends that are highly variable with time as well as within and between regions; trends in the Arctic are consistent with global averages but are quantitatively smaller. The averaged annual volume loss is 147 mm⋅yr⁻¹ in water equivalent, totaling 3.7 × 10³ km³ over 37 yr. The time series shows a shift during the mid-1970s, followed by more rapid loss of ice volume and further acceleration in the last decade; this is consistent with climatologic data. Perhaps most significant is an increase in annual accumulation along with an increase in melting; these produce a marked increase in the annual turnover or amplitude. The rise in air temperature suggested by the temperature sensitivities of glaciers in cold regions is somewhat greater than the global average temperature rise derived largely from low altitude gauges, and the warming is accelerating.

http://www.pnas.org/...97/4/1406.short

Tree range also shows an unprecedented shift in the last century, and supports anecdotal evidence presented here by Doug repeatedly;

Quote

Climate warming by ca. 0.8°C between the late-19th and late-20th century, although with some fluctuations, has forced multispecies elevational tree-limit advance by >100 m for the principal tree species in the Swedish part of the Scandinavian mountain range. Predominantly, these processes imply growth in height of old established individuals and less frequently upslope migration of new individuals. After a slight retardation during some cooler decades after 1940, a new active phase of tree-limit advance has occurred with a series of exceptionally mild winters and some warm summers during the 1990s. The magnitude of total 20th century tree-limit rise varies with topoclimate and is mainly confined to wind-sheltered and snow-rich segments of the landscape. Thickening of birch tree stands in the “advance belt” has profoundly altered the general character of the subalpine/low alpine landscape and provides a positive feedback loop for further progressive change and resilience to short-term cooling episodes. All upslope tree-limit shifts and associated landscape transformations during the 20th century have occurred without appreciable time lags, which constitutes knowledge fundamental to the generation of realistic models concerning vegetation responses to potential future warming. The new and elevated pine tree-limit may be the highest during the past 4000 ¹⁴C years. Thus, it is tentatively inferred that the 20th century climate is unusually warm in a late-Holocene perspective.

http://www.bioone.or...44-7447-30.2.72

Evidence from Tibet that temperature are higher than in at least 700yrs;

Quote

Ecological systems in the headwaters of the Yellow River, characterized by hash natural environmental
conditions, are very vulnerable to climatic change. In the most recent decades, this area greatly at-
tracted the public’s attention for its more and more deteriorating environmental conditions. Based on
tree-ring samples from the Xiqing Mountain and A’nyêmagên Mountains at the headwaters of the Yellow
River in the Northeastern Tibetan Plateau, we reconstructed the minimum temperatures in the winter
half year over the last 425 years and the maximum temperatures in the summer half year over the past
700 years in this region. The variation of minimum temperature in the winter half year during the time
span of 1578―1940 was a relatively stable trend, which was followed by an abrupt warming trend since
1941. However, there is no significant warming trend for the maximum temperature in the summer half
year over the 20th century. The asymmetric variation patterns between the minimum and maximum
temperatures were observed in this study over the past 425 years. During the past 425 years, there are
similar variation patterns between the minimum and maximum temperatures; however, the minimum
temperatures vary about 25 years earlier compared to the maximum temperatures. If such a trend of
variation patterns between the minimum and maximum temperatures over the past 425 years continues
in the future 30 years, the maximum temperature in this region will increase significantly

http://219.238.6.203...e=PDF&id=307566

Evidence from Vostok;

Quote

The recent completion of drilling at Vostok station in East Antarctica has allowed the extension of the ice record of
atmospheric composition and climate to the past four glacial–interglacial cycles. The succession of changes through
each climate cycle and termination was similar, and atmospheric and climate properties oscillated between stable
bounds. Interglacial periods differed in temporal evolution and duration. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide
and methane correlate well with Antarctic air-temperature throughout the record. Present-day atmospheric burdens of
these two important greenhouse gases seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years.

http://www.daycreek....images/1999.pdf

More evidence for an upclick in the temperature trend;

Quote

Knowledge of past climate variability is crucial for understanding and modeling current and future climate trends. This article reviews present knowledge of changes in temperatures and two major circulation features—El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)—over much of the last 1000 years, mainly on the basis of high-resolution paleoclimate records. Average temperatures during the last three decades were likely the warmest of the last millennium, about 0.2°C warmer than during warm periods in the 11th and 12th centuries. The 20th century experienced the strongest warming trend of the millennium (about 0.6°C per century). Some recent changes in ENSO may have been unique since 1800, whereas the recent trend to more positive NAO values may have occurred several times since 1500. Uncertainties will only be reduced through more extensive spatial sampling of diverse proxy climatic records.

ftp://linux-server.ims.metu.edu.tr/pub/iklim/ecoclimate/science/662.pdf

Notice how most of this stuff is a decade old. The reason is that the evidence is conclusive and no one is repeating what is already established facts.

P.S. - MID though your little rant about naming was all very entertaining - the reason why it is called anthropogenic Climate change is because that is a scientifically accurate term for what is happening which accurately and succinctly describes the cause. Maybe you take issue with calling humans Homo sapien's as well.



Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 06 October 2012 - 05:18 PM.

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 06 October 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

what is the empirical basis for the statement "the sudden and dramatic uptick in recent times"
there is no basis based on measurement. the "uptick" he refers to occurs regularly all the time and at a similar rate throughout the record.

Pick any of the globally averaged temperature data sets you care to and look at what has happened since 1908.  If the trends don't jump out of the data at you, run a regression and that will bring it out.  The simple straight-lione model works pretty well, but there are lots you can choose from.

Quote

if you will only accept a model/simulation based study to hindcast historical temperatures(based on a set of disputed assumptions) and that study has not yet been done then you have no scientific basis to accept the underlined assertion above, let alone expect others to accept it.

1.  Modeling is not the only way to study past climates.  You can also use paleo records, which is what I do.  If you want to know what will happen when CO2 levels go up another 100 ppm, you look at what happened last time it went up that high.  Not a difficult concept.
2.  Hindcasting is not the same as forecasting.  The statistics are different.  You can't just reverse the equations, you have to generate new ones.  That the new ones don't do as good a job comes as no surprise at all, nor does that invalidate forecasting.  There are over 300 climate models, some of which are no longer in use because they weren't very accurate.  Cherry-picking the models to criticize does not support your contention.  If you're going to critique modelling, you need to critique the models that are currently in use.  I am not a climate modeler and don't put much faith in them, myself, but when ALL the current models start forecasting desert conditions for the state I live in, I think it's time to take notice.

Quote

you called me a liar for presenting icecore data which contradicts the assertion, yet you don't present any data yourself to show why it is inaccurate.

I did not call you a liar; though, I did say that what you posted is deliberately misleading.  If you did that because you didn't know any better, then you weren't being deliberate and I apologize.  But if that's true, that means you did it because you were ignorant.  So take your pick, you're one or the other.

The picture you posted may be accurate, but I don't know that because you didn't say where you got it.  Thus I cannot go back to the original publication to make sure that it hasn't been altered.  Many of the sites you cut-and-paste from do that.  Even when they refer to real scientific work, it is often misquoted, or used out of context.  And there have even been a couple times when I couldn't find the paper they were talking about and I suspect that no such paper existed.  No, I'm not calling real scientists liars.  But I am calling those who distort and misrepresent their work liars.

Assuming that graph is accurate, it still is just the temperature history of one place on the Greenland ice cap.  Warming/cooling occur in different amounts in different places.  Most get warmer, but some get colder.  No two proxies will show the same amount of warming, maybe not even the same direction.  That's why you need to use GLOBALLY averaged data if you're going to claim that something is the case GLOBALLY.

That you didn't realize that a single sample cannot be extrapolated to an entire population says something about your understanding of science in general.  You have been reading scientific articles for several years now.  In that time, you could have educated yourself, researched a subject and published on it.  It doesn't take a Ph.D. or a list of alphabet soup after your name to contribute to the knowledge base.  But you do have to know something about science.  You can keep on ranting, or you can do the work needed to demonstrate your contentions.  Nobody else is doing that (Though a few have tried.) so you have the field to yourself.  Go for it.

Quote

it is evident you are happy with the assertion "the sudden and dramatic uptick in recent times" since you defended it and did not challenge it, so where is the data that led you to believe it was true. all I have seen in this thread is personal attacks on scientists and calling them liars. no data, just rhetorical assertions, which is a microcosm of the wider debate and the reason why the warmists lost.

I have posted the link to NASA's globally-averaged temps on UM four or five times.  Because I am not in my office, I don't have the link just now, so I am going to pull your stunt and tell you to go find it - it's right here on UM.  If that doesn't work, you can go to NASA and find it; it's also available through the Goddard Institute.

This is a list of monthly average temps since 1880.  If you can't see the trends just by looking, you will have to do some analysis.  So do it and quit complaining.

The problem with claiming wins or losses is that climate change continues.  Tomorrow all our best information could be turned on its head.  Hasn't happened yet, but surprises in science have happened before.
Doug

P.S.:  No, I'm not going to spend a lot of time digging up sources for you. You can easily do that for yourself.  When I have done that in the past, you haven't even bothered to read them.
Doug

P.P.S.:  See Br. Cornelius' post above.  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Doug

P.P.P.S.:  Mann's original "hockey stick" has been superseded by more-refined models since it was published in 1998.  Whatever you can say, or not, about Mann's work, it has now been 14 years since publication and probably more like 17 to 20 since he actually did the work.  The original study is obsolete.  It's time for all of us to move on, especially the deniers, who can't seem to find anything more recent to complain about.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 06 October 2012 - 04:34 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

Quote

P.P.P.S.:  Mann's original "hockey stick" has been superseded by more-refined models since it was published in 1998.  Whatever you can say, or not, about Mann's work, it has now been 14 years since publication and probably more like 17 to 20 since he actually did the work.  The original study is obsolete.  It's time for all of us to move on, especially the deniers, who can't seem to find anything more recent to complain about.
Doug

The graph is still relevant because it has been duplicated - which is the scientific method after all.

More evidence that todays warming is unprecedented since the last Ice age;

Quote

Earth warming unprecedented in last 20,000 years


What is happening today is unique from a historical geological perspective.

My study shows that, apart from the larger-scale developments, such as the general change into warm periods and ice ages, climate change has previously only produced similar effects on local or regional level.

As long as we don’t find any evidence for earlier climate changes leading to similar simultaneous effects on a global scale, we must see today’s global warming as an exception caused by human influence on the Earth’s carbon cycle. This is a good example of how geological knowledge can be used to understand our world. It offers perspectives on how the Earth functions without our direct influence and thus how and to what extent human activity affects the system.

http://earthsky.org/...ast-20000-years



Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 06 October 2012 - 05:40 PM.

[MID]

Br Cornelius, on 05 October 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

Just like man made CFC's never caused the ozone hole - because we're all to ity-bity to change the planet

Br Cornelius

No, it's just like saying that man is causing the so-called warming that's happening on this planet (it's actually cooling, but it's just not that important!).

Yes, those damned humans, well...those who are doing all this stuff the the world,

They take up 3/1,000,000 % of the planets surface area, and weigh in total 3/1,000,000,000,000 % that of the planet!

In case you were  wondering,  we are All TOO ITY-BITY to change the planet's climate.

You may certainly think you're big enough to be visible on this planet's surface...but:

YOU'RE NOT, and, neither are the rest of us, all put together!

But we're all going to make Greenland melt, in not too many years, and of course, people in New York City, or Boston, or Atlantic City better watch becase in no time at all, the water level of the shore is going to flood you out  (all that ice melting hell, you know!)!

People will be dying, and it'll be worse than World War Two!

Of course, most global warming believers don't realize that  60 million or more people died in WW2...they weren't around for that nightmare.  They've concocted global warming, and you wonder:

How many people who were around for 60 to 70 million deaths (including 400,000 American soldiers) do you think find this man made global warming madness significant?

Just pointing oput a few things folks might want to think about beforen spewing again...

[Br Cornelius]

Can you see a bacteria MID. I certainly can't without high powered instruments. However the cumulative effect on an elephant of bacteria left uncontrolled can be death. Whats the difference in scale there ? 1:10000000000

You see your assumption is all wrong - and you still haven't actually addressed the fact that the anthropogenic CFC destruction of the parts of the Ozone layer is scientific fact and disproves your assertion that we can have no significant effect on the planet or atmosphere.

How about the Aral sea or the Dead Sea - we didn't cause there almost total disappearance then - which was certainly visible from space.

When you have a good argument for why we can't have caused climate change - please get back to me.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 06 October 2012 - 06:34 PM.