27 replies to this topic

[Little Fish]

Doug1o29, on 13 November 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

There are only a half-dozen or so globally averaged temperature anomally data sets.  Which of those are you saying do not show warming since 1997?  I am not aware that ANY fail to show it.

As those are the only evidence there is, it's time to cite one (or more).  In other words, put up some evidence.
Doug

http://www.woodfortr...from:1997/trend

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 13 November 2012 - 07:12 AM, said:

There has been global warming over the last 16 yrs. It has been observed in the surface record and in the OHC. Only by careful selection of one particular start date can that be concealed - which is called cherry picking.
Models are aids to understanding what is likely to happen on a macro level over the long time scale - they do rather well in that most have matched the temperature record within standard error. What they are not good at is predicting micro detail on the geographic or short time scales - but then again that was not their purpose - which is  what BFB said.

Br Cornelius

again, what do you define as "short term" and "long term"?
no global warming for 16 years - that's a big chunk of the measurement record that shows warming that is claimed to be due to co2. but again you miss the point here - NOAA says that a period of 15 years of no trend is enough to falsify the gcm models.

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 14 November 2012 - 02:01 AM, said:

again, what do you define as "short term" and "long term"?
no global warming for 16 years - that's a big chunk of the measurement record that shows warming that is claimed to be due to co2. but again you miss the point here - NOAA says that a period of 15 years of no trend is enough to falsify the gcm models.

If there had been no accumulation of heat energy in the system you might have a point. Since there has, you haven't.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 14 November 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

If there had been no accumulation of heat energy in the system you might have a point. Since there has, you haven't.

Br Cornelius

I want to test the assertion that gcms are better at "long term" predictions than "short term" predictions.
if you don't define "short term" and "long term" then it is untestable, its just faith.

the gcms predictions being used to frighten us into giving up our labour and wealth are predictions of global temperatures, not "accumulations of heat energy". Noaa says that gcms as they claim to understand co2/temperature do not output zero trends for 15 years, that is a testable statement made in 2007 and it failed, but will the warmists reexamine the hypothesis that co2 is the cause, which the models are built on as demanded by the scientific method, nope, what happens is that untestable and speculative assertions are made to cover up for the failure of the gcm models, the gcm model outputs are the only "evidence" for "dire predictions" but nature isn't cooperating with the models. so before we each pay $300/ton co2 to the vampiric money junkies I want to see some empirical evidence otherwise it's not science, its just an excuse to milk the masses.

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 14 November 2012 - 01:54 AM, said:

http://www.woodfortr...from:1997/trend

Thank you for your graph.  But why didn't you actually look at it?  The trend line (the green one) is INCREASING.  Admittedly, it's not a big increase, but trend lines only increase if the average is increasing.  And that means, temps are going up.

There's a note that the graph is based on hadcrut3, produced by the University of East Anglia - you know - the place that puts out pro-warming propaganda.  So why are you basing your claims that there's no warming on the work of people that you say lie?  I don't get it.

A copy of the hadcrut3 data set is available at:  http://www.cru.uea.a.../hadcrut3gl.txt

Temperature anomalies listed are differences from the 1951-1980 mean and expressed in hundredths of a degree Centigrade.  Since 1991, the mean annual anomalies are:
1991:  0.213
1992:  0.062
1993:  0.106
1994:  0.172
1995:  0.275
1996:  0.137
1997:  0.352
1998:  0.548
1999:  0.297
2000:  0.271
2001:  0.408
2002:  0.465
2003:  0.475
2004:  0.447
2005:  0.482
2006:  0.425
2007:  0.402
2008:  0.325
2009:  0.443
2010:  0.478
2011:  0.340
2012:  Incomplete

This list contains the fifteen hottest years ever recorded.  Fourteen of them are in the 1997-2011 period (1995 was warmer than 2000.).

(You'd probably do better if you used Hansen's list of global temperature anomalies, but you can't do that because (according to you) he lies too.  Eventually you'll have to decide who to believe and when you do that, your claim goes down the tubes.)

This dataset exhibits an outlier problem:  1998 is significantly warmer than any other year listed.  If this one outlier were not there, the trend would be strongly upward instead of just weakly upward.  You are putting an awful lot of faith in one observation.

But we can't throw out an observation just because we don't like it.  So the next question is:  what caused that outlier?  The answer affects both our contentions.

At any rate, I have a copy of the dataset and will be looking at it more carefully over the next few weeks.  I am leaving on a collecting trip this aftrenoon , so I won't have a chance to look at it until I get back next week.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 14 November 2012 - 02:53 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 14 November 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

I want to test the assertion that gcms are better at "long term" predictions than "short term" predictions.
if you don't define "short term" and "long term" then it is untestable, its just faith.

the gcms predictions being used to frighten us into giving up our labour and wealth are predictions of global temperatures, not "accumulations of heat energy". Noaa says that gcms as they claim to understand co2/temperature do not output zero trends for 15 years, that is a testable statement made in 2007 and it failed, but will the warmists reexamine the hypothesis that co2 is the cause, which the models are built on as demanded by the scientific method, nope, what happens is that untestable and speculative assertions are made to cover up for the failure of the gcm models, the gcm model outputs are the only "evidence" for "dire predictions" but nature isn't cooperating with the models. so before we each pay $300/ton co2 to the vampiric money junkies I want to see some empirical evidence otherwise it's not science, its just an excuse to milk the masses.

As Doug pointed out your basic premise is flawed - the trend has been upwards. Really that is where the discussion should end. Your assertion that the models are the only basis of the predictions is equally flawed since the data record shows a clear warming response to CO2 forcing on both the surface temperature and the overall heat content of the system - in the absence of any external forcing.
Heat is what actually matters as it is a measure of overall energy. Temperature is place specific and by choosing to concentrate exclusively on one place (the surface) it tells you very little about the actual system dynamics. It shows a lack of wanting to actually understand what is happening to the planet - it shows you are only interested in arguing points which can be won or lost.

I am interested in what happens if you accumulate heat(energy) within a dynamic system for over 200years. I have a fairly good idea what happens because scientists are collecting data and modelling that data and the ultimate outcome says that heating will be somewhere between 3 to 6 degrees of surface temperature rise for a doubling of CO2.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 14 November 2012 - 02:41 PM.

[freetoroam]

"fulfilling scientists’ most dire predictions"
predictions, made with the million pounds equipment, but saying that, they are scientists and its not rocket science really when you know how the weather has changed throughout Earths existance, that its likely to happen again, except today man IS helping it somewhat a lot quicker than nature intended.
Not to worry, the way we are breeding, there will be well enough people in future to witness and suffer the consequences.

[Br Cornelius]

freetoroam, on 14 November 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

"fulfilling scientists’ most dire predictions"
predictions, made with the million pounds equipment, but saying that, they are scientists and its not rocket science really when you know how the weather has changed throughout Earths existance, that its likely to happen again, except today man IS helping it somewhat a lot quicker than nature intended.
Not to worry, the way we are breeding, there will be well enough people in future to witness and suffer the consequences.

Which is exactly what scientists are telling us - climate changes naturally, and climate changes because of man. It is only denialists which attempt to claim that scientists attribute all changes to man. Its a convenient arguing point which attempts to show them as unreasonable.

Br Cornelius

[freetoroam]

Scientists come in all shape and forms, so does nature, but there are some out there who thinks he is GOD, considering this is one piece of history which has never been proven, I will read what the some scientists have to say and keep watching the skies for the rest of the news.

[Br Cornelius]

We can only view these things by our own best reading of the evidence (if we are fair and open minded in that reading) and by making a judgement call on who is most likely to be correct based upon the prevailing view of those with enough expertise to draw such conclusions.The weight in that case falls overwhelmingly on the side of AGW been a substantial part of all the current climate change.

Br Cornelius

[dmurdock36]

CO2 is a by product of the earth warming not a cause, this may be a shocker to some but the sun is what causes warming not co2

[Little Fish]

dmurdock36, on 14 November 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:

CO2 is a by product of the earth warming not a cause, this may be a shocker to some but the sun is what causes warming not co2

correct, co2 solubility in water is inversely proportional to the water's temperature. as water warms it gives off more co2, as water cools it absorbs more co2. rainwater has a natural acidic ph, meaning that rainwater dissolves co2 in the atmosphere, and then puts it in the ocean.

Edited by Little Fish, 14 November 2012 - 05:53 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

dmurdock36, on 14 November 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:

CO2 is a by product of the earth warming not a cause, this may be a shocker to some but the sun is what causes warming not co2

Its a shocker that you should believe so when you look at the data.
What you are seeing, and misattributing, is a feedback mechanism.

Just because temperature effects the level of atmospheric CO2 doesn't disprove that CO2 effects temperature. It has been widely studied and included within climate science.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 14 November 2012 - 06:29 PM.