Big freeze could signal global warming 'pause

[Guest]

I'm not the one making the claim that man is causing global warming. its up to those scientists to back up such claims and using information from advocacy groups, material that never went threw a rigorous peer review process. mountaineering magazine or the World Wildlife Fund don't seem like reliable sources.

Yes but you are choosing to ignore the wealth of scientific research which supports that position. It is either that or you are totally ignorant of it.

You are focusing on a very small cross section of the research which just about supports skeptism. This is classic "quote mining" as a mindset.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

whats a facted based opinion?

An opinion based on the most likely interpretation of empirically collected data. It is opinion with a high probability of according with reality to a large degree. It is not speculation based on what you want to believe. If the facts fail to support your opinion then it must absolutely be discarded as proven false. There is no wiggle room here, if the facts go against your opinion then the opinion is false.

In the case which we started this discussion you produced an opinion piece about threats to rainforest, you provided no data to support your position. I provided data to support the position that drought in the rainforest does have a dramatic effect. As such my opinion is fact based, yours is pure opinion based on an opinion without supporting facts.

Notice the difference.

I genuinely am not trying to play clever word games here, I am making a point that you have to go to primary sources, read them, understand them and be able to critic them for what they are in order to have a meaningful discussion about a complex subject. Unless people are prepared to do this then the discussion is pure noise.

There is lots of business and politics involved in this and it makes uninformed discussion purely manipulation of emotional responses. There are huge consequences for the environment, but there are also huge consequences for businesses and countries bottom lines. People are prepared to play very dirty here and the proof can be found in how the Tobacco and asbestos industries lied about the underlying science for decades. They created reasonable doubt which prevented policy makers making clear decisions about peoples health. The rewards amounted to billions of dollars, and in many cases the directors new the time was up and dissolved the responsible companies so that damages became impossible to claim. The difference with climate change is that once the damage has been done there will be very little left to claim against.

Br Cornelius

Edited February 2, 2010 by Guest

[Caesar]

Yes but you are choosing to ignore the wealth of scientific research which supports that position. It is either that or you are totally ignorant of it.

Br Cornelius

If it was a scientific fact based on research then they should be able to tell you what future temperatures will be and the facts are they cant, even computer models cant say that,it must be tested in reality.

[Guest]

If it was a scientific fact based on research then they should be able to tell you what future temperatures will be and the facts are they cant, even computer models cant say that,it must be tested in reality.

Modelling a system as complex as the planet is "impossible". There can never be a computer big enough. Go read up on Chaos to understand why that is so. However that doesn't prevent predictions of trends from observed datasets, and those predictions are far better than guesses.

Br Cornelius

[Caesar]

An opinion based on the most likely interpretation of empirically collected data. It is opinion with a high probability of according with reality to a large degree. It is not speculation based on what you want to believe. If the facts fail to support your opinion then it must absolutely be discarded as proven false. There is no wiggle room here, if the facts go against your opinion then the opinion is false.

In the case which we started this discussion you produced an opinion piece about threats to rainforest, you provided no data to support your position. I provided data to support the position that drought in the rainforest does have a dramatic effect. As such my opinion is fact based, yours is pure opinion based on an opinion without supporting facts.

Notice the difference.

I genuinely am not trying to play clever word games here, I am making a point that you have to go to primary sources, read them, understand them and be able to critic them for what they are in order to have a meaningful discussion about a complex subject. Unless people are prepared to do this then the discussion is Br Cornelius

I looked up "fact based opinion" on Wikipedia and its not listed, so maybe you might want to add that in Wikipedia.

[Caesar]

Modelling a system as complex as the planet is "impossible". There can never be a computer big enough. Go read up on Chaos to understand why that is so. However that doesn't prevent predictions of trends from observed datasets, and those predictions are far better than guesses.

Br Cornelius

Trends, predictions and forcasts does not show cause and effect. I'm sure Sylvia Browne's predictions are far better than guesses but its not science. since its an open system our knowledge is quite limited.

[illuminol]

Global Warming hmmmmmm. Anyone heard about Solar Warming? How will we stop the sun getting hotter as it uses up more fuel? I'm not convinced of global warming, but i am convinced that we are polluting the air we breath and the water we drink with emissions and we are polluting the outer atmosphere with space junk. Shiny floating reflective space junk. Imagine all that reflective material magnifying the suns already warming rays onto the planet.

[sepulchrave]

Global Warming hmmmmmm. Anyone heard about Solar Warming?

Yeah, that only perceptibly occurs over the span of millions of years. Solar variation over the course of a year (due to the Earth moving closer and farther from the Sun) is about 3.6%, Solar warming is much much much smaller than that.

...we are polluting the outer atmosphere with space junk. Shiny floating reflective space junk. Imagine all that reflective material magnifying the suns already warming rays onto the planet.

There is not nearly enough `space junk' to do anything like that, and even if there were it would have to be very precisely aligned.

[illuminol]

Yeah, that only perceptibly occurs over the span of millions of years. Solar variation over the course of a year (due to the Earth moving closer and farther from the Sun) is about 3.6%, Solar warming is much much much smaller than that.

There is not nearly enough `space junk' to do anything like that, and even if there were it would have to be very precisely aligned.

Do you know that for sure? I would like to think you're right but since seeing this, i'm thinking we have a problem on our hands :

mapped debris from NASA

[Guest]

Do you know that for sure? I would like to think you're right but since seeing this, i'm thinking we have a problem on our hands :

mapped debris from NASA

Those dots look like a cloud - but they are not in relative scale. If it were then the earth would fill the room and the dots would remain the same. No chance of them cutting out enough light to make a difference.

Br Cornelius

[sepulchrave]

Those dots look like a cloud - but they are not in relative scale. If it were then the earth would fill the room and the dots would remain the same. No chance of them cutting out enough light to make a difference.

Br Cornelius

Plus if they were focusing additional radiation from the Sun onto the Earth in any significant amount you'd be able to see them during the day. I think they would show up as bright concentric halos around the Sun.

You can sometimes see a single faintish halo around the Sun on very cold winter days when there is a lot of high-altitude ice in the atmosphere (usually only at sunrise though, during midday there aren't enough ice crystals), so I think space junk would look similar, if there were enough of it and if it were properly positioned to have that effect.

[illuminol]

So is it safe to assume that space junk is not negatively affecting the planet in any way? - apart from making it dangerous for functioning equipment and space craft and cluttering up the outer atmosphere?

[sepulchrave]

So is it safe to assume that space junk is not negatively affecting the planet in any way? - apart from making it dangerous for functioning equipment and space craft and cluttering up the outer atmosphere?

Yes, I believe it is safe to say that.

[Doug1066]

On 1/28/2010 at 5:16 PM, Caesar said:

31,000 American scientists

That is arguing against the Kyoto Accords which were reached  in 1997.  It's on;y 24 years out-of-date.  "W" used a book withdrawn from publication (Baliunas and Moon) to support withdrawing the US from Kyoto.  In the end we didn't withdraw.  Instead we did nothing.  ALL of the global warming consensus papers have been published since then, as have all three of Mann's hockey stick papers.  You're quoting ancient history.

Doug

[Doug1066]

On 1/29/2010 at 3:45 PM, Caesar said:

it seems like there has been many errors, made up numbers, almost no by review process by skeptics.

I have a paper in peer review right now.  The publisher asked me to supply a list of possible reviewers they might ask to review the paper.  Sound like academic incest?  Because scientific papers are usually cutting-edge research, there are few if any other people out there who know enough about a subject to review it.  Skeptics don't get asked to review papers because they lack the expertise in the field.

Doug

[Doug1066]

On 1/29/2010 at 5:16 PM, Caesar said:

Am I saying there is no AGW, no. I just don't know. I just don't find groups like the IPCC credible. you have the IPCC Chairman Pachauri being asked to resign, Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, and Michael Mann, director of the Penn State under investigation.

Mann was exonerated by no fewer than eight different investigations.  He has since retured.

On 1/31/2010 at 3:45 AM, Br Cornelius said:

I went and read the amazongate link. It stated that an experiment was conducted which said that just three years of drought was enough to cause a 10% die off which is broadly in support of thbe original claim. Droughts of 3 years plus are not uncommon and likely to become much more common.

I am wondering if this is a reference to an Amazon climate study done back in the 90s.  The authors used climate simulators to test their hypothesis that short-term drought could destroy the rain forest.  Unfortunately, when they did the test run, they held sea surface temperatures constant.  By the time the mistake was discovered, they had used up their budget for computer time and could not do anoither one.  They changed their hypothesis and published the paper anyway, but the change was subtle and casual readers often miss it.

 

On a related topic:  the Amazon canopy recovers from deforestation in about four years.

Doug

[Doug1066]

I.                  The Ladder

 

1.     There is no such thing as climate change.

 

2.     OK, climate change is real, but we don't know what causes it.

 

3.     OK, we know humans are a major contributor, but there's nothing we can do about it.

 

4.     OK, there is plenty we can do about it, but it's too expensive.

 

5.     OK, conversion to green energy is cheaper than what we're doing now and conversion will create jobs, but how do we get China to go along?

 

6.     OK, China is ahead of the US, so how do we get the US to go along?

 

7.     OK, there's a lot we can do to get the US to go along, but how do we get politicians to go along?

 

[The_Phantom_Stranger]

12 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

 

7.     OK, there's a lot we can do to get the US to go along, but how do we get politicians to go along?

 

Bribe them like they're already getting bribed to deny climate change, or buy out their companies.

[Doug1066]

1 hour ago, The_Phantom_Stranger said:

Bribe them like they're already getting bribed to deny climate change, or buy out their companies.

The companies that supply you with clean energy will be the same ones who now supply you with coal, oil and gas.  Nextera, Chesapeake, Gulf, Union, Standard, Amoco, Sun and others will be the suppliers of clean energy.  It's not justice, but it is what is happening right now.

Doug

[Doug1066]

On 1/11/2010 at 2:34 PM, Goblin-5 said:

Well I think that global warming is a true event, my issue is with the IPCC assertion that it is driven mainly by man produced CO2. Mind you their mandate was to show that man was responsible for global warming.

Global warming is easy enough to prove:  randomly select a hundred or so weather stations from around the world with daily records going back to at least 1900.  Run a straight-line regression using all observations (about 88,390 observations):  if the line has a positive slope, the world is getting warmer.

Then, if you want to show that CO2 had an effect, add a CO2 variable to the model.  The CO2 coefficient will tell you exactly how much effect CO2 had,

These methods are taught in first-year statistics courses.  There is no mystery here.

I have done this for Oklahoma.  We have nine climate divisions.  All nine show increasing temps AND increasing precip.  Temps are at all-time highs.  Precip has not yet reached its all-time high, but should do so within a few years.  I am attempting to extend this record back to at least 1750 using tree rings from post oaks.

Should be able to reach 1400 for locations using ERC data.

Doug

[Doug1066]

On 1/12/2010 at 8:59 AM, WoIverine said:

It snowed in Daytona Beach, Fl. Global warming...my ass. It hasn't snowed there...EVER.

Back in January, 1977, Miami, FL got an inch of snow.  By your thinking, that proves global warming.  It might be a good ideqa to check that month for Daytona Beach's weather before you make a categorical statement.

BTW:  The nation's worst ice storm was in Atlanta, GA.  North America's worst ice storm was in Quebec.  Average temperature range for both storms was 26-33F.

Doug

PS:  It is Key West that had never recorded any snow at all.

Doug

Edited November 20, 2021 by Doug1066

[Doug1066]

On 2/4/2010 at 11:38 PM, illuminol said:

Global Warming hmmmmmm. Anyone heard about Solar Warming? How will we stop the sun getting hotter as it uses up more fuel? I'm not convinced of global warming, but i am convinced that we are polluting the air we breath and the water we drink with emissions and we are polluting the outer atmosphere with space junk. Shiny floating reflective space junk. Imagine all that reflective material magnifying the suns already warming rays onto the planet.

There is a correlation between sunspots and global mean temps.  Global mean temp fluctuates about 0.3C over the course of a solar cycle.  Not enough to feel the difference, but enough to measure with thermometers.

Doug

[Doug1066]

On 2/7/2010 at 10:46 PM, illuminol said:

So is it safe to assume that space junk is not negatively affecting the planet in any way? - apart from making it dangerous for functioning equipment and space craft and cluttering up the outer atmosphere?

Don't look up.

Doug

[Doug1066]

On 2/2/2010 at 5:45 PM, Caesar said:

Trends, predictions and forcasts does not show cause and effect. I'm sure Sylvia Browne's predictions are far better than guesses but its not science. since its an open system our knowledge is quite limited.

Models do not show cause and effect, but their accuracy can be quantified.  Simply pair up a set of predicted values with their real-life counter-parts.  Apply Pierson's Correlation Coefficient.  The result is a number between zero and one.  Zero means no correlation; one is a perfect fit.  You can test any model using this method.  If you do, you'll know how good or bad they are.  Test several so you'll have an idea of the range of values the system produces.

Doug

[onlookerofmayhem]

Pssssst...  @Doug1066, fyi you are replying to posters and a topic that hasn't been active in eleven years.

Just saying. Maybe you want to start a new thread about what you're working on.

Cheers.