Global warming a lie?

[cerberusxp]

So who is this funded by BP? Middlebury

Actually E=MC square throws a proverbial monkey wrench in the whole C02 debacle.

Al Gore has a lot of poppy dogs following him. 35 lies of Inconvenient truth

Look volcanos are the mother of all C02 producers on the planet hands down. 24,000 times more in fact, than man in just one eruption.

Edited March 25, 2011 by cerberusxp

[Guest]

So who is this funded by BP? Middlebury

Actually E=MC square throws a proverbial monkey wrench in the whole C02 debacle.

Al Gore has a lot of poppy dogs following him. 35 lies of Inconvenient truth

Look volcanos are the mother of all C02 producers on the planet hands down. 24,000 times more in fact, than man in just one eruption.

Bring us a real argued case and we will stop laughing at your outrageous hyperbole.

As Matt and Sepulchrave and Doug have all pointed out - within the scientific world there is an overwhelming consensus. Each year the data gets stronger.

Quoting from politically funded websites does nothing to bolster your position and only serves to prove that you haven't really researched the science at all. I can send you to a presentation which will demonstrate in forensic detail how Monkton lies in just about everything he has ever said, and the SPPI is a right wing think tank funded with the sole purpose of discrediting the real climate science. Has it ever published a real scientific study ?? I know it hasn't.

If you have a technical problem with a piece of particular science - please raise it and the scientists here will attempt to clarify what is going on.

If you are here just to rant about how big a lie AGW is, you only make yourself look fooling.

Br Cornelius

Edited March 25, 2011 by Guest

[lp21why]

So who is this funded by BP? Middlebury

Actually E=MC square throws a proverbial monkey wrench in the whole C02 debacle.

Al Gore has a lot of poppy dogs following him. 35 lies of Inconvenient truth

Look volcanos are the mother of all C02 producers on the planet hands down. 24,000 times more in fact, than man in just one eruption.

Actually James A. Peden has close links to Marc Morano (the guy who runs ClimateDepot) so you might actually be quite close to the mark with that comment.

Christopher Monckton likes to spout rhetoric that has been disproven (look up Prof. John Abraham's rebuttal - even then Monckton responds by insulting him and trying to censure him) and flat out lies (i.e. the supposed John Houghton quote that Monckton likes to spread). Not a very reliable source of information at all.

And your last remark is completely wrong. Annually volcanoes make up less than 1% of all CO2 emissions Source; where did you get your figure?

[Binaural Ubiety]

Global Warming is real and I don't really want some kind of catastrophe in my life time, but it seems inevitable and is a truth we or I must face :\

[FurthurBB]

This topic's been thrashed out on here, but always good to review i guess.

Always thought it a Global profit n' revenue raising scam.

The likes of fat flatulent frauds such as Gore & Co convincing me beyond any doubt it was nothing more than a massive pile of ozone depleting BS.

Correct me if i'm wrong here; But wasn't Global Warming officially debunked and before the GW smog even had a chance to clear, enter The Climate Change Scam Debate(?)...Therefore we basically being taxed on the so called planet's natural cycle...?

This little dilemma is just a situation of the media, not science. It was always climate change to scientists.

[Doug1029]

That would be awesome Doug, thanks. So just to make it a little clearer what is happening to the tree rings exactly? Growing slower or just damaged in a way?

Preliminary result: The Stambaugh and Guyette model applied to Ouachita National Forest shortleaf pine.

W = 1.0047 - 0.0333(Fall) + 0.0674*(Spring) + 0.000539*(LoTemp)

W is the width of the growth ring in centimeters.

Fall is the monthly average value of the Palmer Drought Severity Index for the months of October through December in the previous growing season.

Sping is the monthly average value of the Palmer Drought Severity Index for the months of Januar though July of the current growing season.

LoTemp is the extreme low temperature for the months of February and March in the current growing season.

Data range is 120 years.

ANOVA:

Soucre DF SS MS F

Model 3 182.8 60.9414 712.36

Error 27064 2315.3 0.0855

Sum 27067 2498.1

r^2=0.0732

s=0.2924

The r^2 value of 0.0732 is quite low. Stambaugh and Guyette obtained 0.43 for Missouri Ozark shortleaf pines and Lafon and Speer obtained 0.12 for Virginia oaks. I am continuing to test other models in hopes of improving this.

Doug

Edited March 25, 2011 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

Preliminary result: The Stambaugh and Guyette model applied to Ouachita National Forest shortleaf pine.

W = 1.0047 - 0.0333(Fall) + 0.0674*(Spring) + 0.000539*(LoTemp)

W is the width of the growth ring in centimeters.

Fall is the monthly average value of the Palmer Drought Severity Index for the months of October through December in the previous growing season.

Sping is the monthly average value of the Palmer Drought Severity Index for the months of Januar though July of the current growing season.

LoTemp is the extreme low temperature for the months of February and March in the current growing season.

Data range is 120 years.

ANOVA:

Soucre DF SS MS F

Model 3 182.8 60.9414 712.36

Error 27064 2315.3 0.0855

Sum 27067 2498.1

r^2=0.0732

s=0.2924

The r^2 value of 0.0732 is quite low. Stambaugh and Guyette obtained 0.43 for Missouri Ozark shortleaf pines and Lafon and Speer obtained 0.12 for Virginia oaks. I am continuing to test other models in hopes of improving this.

Doug

P.S.: That **** UM system crunched my ANOVA table. The numbers are there; you'll have to space them out to look pretty.

This model does not use years or age, so it can't be projected into the future, except indirectly through expected changes in PDSI values. Tree growth is accelerating (rings getting wider) due to increasing temperatures. In Oklahoma/Arkansas, amount of precip is not changing, but what arrives comes in a greater number of storms.

Doug

Edited March 25, 2011 by Doug1029

[StarChild 83]

P.S.: That **** UM system crunched my ANOVA table. The numbers are there; you'll have to space them out to look pretty.

This model does not use years or age, so it can't be projected into the future, except indirectly through expected changes in PDSI values. Tree growth is accelerating (rings getting wider) due to increasing temperatures. In Oklahoma/Arkansas, amount of precip is not changing, but what arrives comes in a greater number of storms.

Doug

Thanks for sharing your results, appreciate your hard work.

[Guest]

P.S.: That **** UM system crunched my ANOVA table. The numbers are there; you'll have to space them out to look pretty.

This model does not use years or age, so it can't be projected into the future, except indirectly through expected changes in PDSI values. Tree growth is accelerating (rings getting wider) due to increasing temperatures. In Oklahoma/Arkansas, amount of precip is not changing, but what arrives comes in a greater number of storms.

Doug

A little bit disappointing as a correlation so far.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1029]

A little bit disappointing as a correlation so far.

Br Cornelius

I agree!

Doug

[Big Bad Voodoo]

I heard plenty things against Global warming.

[Doug1029]

A little bit disappointing as a correlation so far.

Br Cornelius

I have a version that achieves r^2=0.117, which makes it comparable to Lafon and Speers' result. I also have one nicknamed "The Big Model" that achieved r^2=0.345 for a 46-tree subset of my own data. The problem seems to be that Stambaugh and Guyette used a sample of about 30 old growth trees from one site, while I am using 468 second-growth trees from 26 sites. Several of my sites were logged in the mid-80s and again in the late 90s while some weren't. I am thinking of creating dummy variables to separate the logged sites from the unlogged ones. Also, some time variables might correct for growth responses to the disturbances. I already have a model for eleven blue storms that happened during the lifetimes of these trees, but it isn't included in the new model. As you can see, it's going to take awhile to do the work and I have a collecting trip coming up next week.

I don't know what line of work you are in, but in natural sciences we have to work with very low r-square values. Even so, 12% while publishable, is not very good. I can generally do better.

Doug

I heard plenty things against Global warming.

What have you heard? And what is the science that supports it?

Doug

[Big Bad Voodoo]

-Global cooldown. Earth is getting far from the sun. New iceage.

-In past there was warmer then today.

[lp21why]

-Global cooldown. Earth is getting far from the sun. New iceage.

-In past there was warmer then today.

The Earth doesn't get further from the Sun per se, simply the shape (or eccentricity) of the orbit changes. Therefore there is different amounts of energy recieved at different times; this coupled with axial tilt and wobble creates climatic shifts. However the total amount of energy recieved doesn't change all that much.

The second statement is a tad redundant. The last comparable period to today is the mid-Pliocene warm period 3 million years ago. Temperatures were higher, but so were greenhouse gas concentrations.

Just because something can happen naturally, doesn't mean it can't be man made also.

[Guest]

I have a version that achieves r^2=0.117, which makes it comparable to Lafon and Speers' result. I also have one nicknamed "The Big Model" that achieved r^2=0.345 for a 46-tree subset of my own data. The problem seems to be that Stambaugh and Guyette used a sample of about 30 old growth trees from one site, while I am using 468 second-growth trees from 26 sites. Several of my sites were logged in the mid-80s and again in the late 90s while some weren't. I am thinking of creating dummy variables to separate the logged sites from the unlogged ones. Also, some time variables might correct for growth responses to the disturbances. I already have a model for eleven blue storms that happened during the lifetimes of these trees, but it isn't included in the new model. As you can see, it's going to take awhile to do the work and I have a collecting trip coming up next week.

I don't know what line of work you are in, but in natural sciences we have to work with very low r-square values. Even so, 12% while publishable, is not very good. I can generally do better.

Doug

What have you heard? And what is the science that supports it?

Doug

I understand the difficulty of statistical analysis of environmental data - because I am currently training to be an environmental scientist.

How to seperate out the variable of interest from the range of effecting variable. Even the simplest controlled microcosm system is difficult to set up and interpret. This fundamentally, for me at least, is the problem with lack of understanding of AGW - its a systems wide effect with patchy and complex outcomes. Everything we have learnt, and everything science has claimed (up till now) projects the idea of simple linear cause and effect reductionist explanations. These do not readily present themselves in Environmental systems and so people are unable to grasp the layers of interrelated complexity that has to be grasped before we can attempt to understand what is going on.

For me the challenge of AGW is not to make it understandable to the average man or policy maker - but to raise the level of understanding to the point where this intrinsic complexity is accepted and embraced.

Br Cornelius

[Flashbangwollap]

I understand the difficulty of statistical analysis of environmental data - because I am currently training to be an environmental scientist.

How to seperate out the variable of interest from the range of effecting variable. Even the simplest controlled microcosm system is difficult to set up and interpret. This fundamentally, for me at least, is the problem with lack of understanding of AGW - its a systems wide effect with patchy and complex outcomes. Everything we have learnt, and everything science has claimed (up till now) projects the idea of simple linear cause and effect reductionist explanations. These do not readily present themselves in Environmental systems and so people are unable to grasp the layers of interrelated complexity that has to be grasped before we can attempt to understand what is going on.

For me the challenge of AGW is not to make it understandable to the average man or policy maker - but to raise the level of understanding to the point where this intrinsic complexity is accepted and embraced.

Br Cornelius

Somewhat like plate tectonics where we understand the basics but there are many anomalies.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

The Earth doesn't get further from the Sun per se, simply the shape (or eccentricity) of the orbit changes. Therefore there is different amounts of energy recieved at different times; this coupled with axial tilt and wobble creates climatic shifts. However the total amount of energy recieved doesn't change all that much.

The second statement is a tad redundant. The last comparable period to today is the mid-Pliocene warm period 3 million years ago. Temperatures were higher, but so were greenhouse gas concentrations.

Just because something can happen naturally, doesn't mean it can't be man made also.

I agree that amounts of energy recived is different. You said it all. Orbit change and distance between earth and sun. And so on. We agree.

[Mattshark]

I agree that amounts of energy recived is different. You said it all. Orbit change and distance between earth and sun. And so on. We agree.

But we are getting warmer. The data is pretty clear on that. 2010 is along with 1998 the hottest year on record with and there is a long term rising trend over the last 150 years.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Mattshark

[Big Bad Voodoo]

But we are getting warmer. The data is pretty clear on that. 2010 is along with 1998 the hottest year on record with and there is a long term rising trend over the last 150 years.

Getting warmer in small period of time watched. If you compared to other times in history we are cooling down.

Also I mentioned that distance between earth and sun is getting bigger to all you conclude that it is logic that we are cooling down.

Maybe if we as human didnt warmed earth maybe we would be frozen. )

Well Im not expert. But as I see it earth is moving from sun= cooling, human=warming...so we are okay for now.

Also look at this pic and tell me what does it tell you...

[Guest]

I agree that amounts of energy recived is different. You said it all. Orbit change and distance between earth and sun. And so on. We agree.

Effects like that happen over thousands of years, not 150yrs. They are well described in the Milankovich cycles and they predict a stable climate for the next 30Kyrs.

What we are experiencing has absolutely northing to do with orbital effects.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

Getting warmer in small period of time watched. If you compared to other times in history we are cooling down.

Also I mentioned that distance between earth and sun is getting bigger to all you conclude that it is logic that we are cooling down.

Maybe if we as human didnt warmed earth maybe we would be frozen. )

Well Im not expert. But as I see it earth is moving from sun= cooling, human=warming...so we are okay for now.

Also look at this pic and tell me what does it tell you...

There is no use pointing at the MWP and saying it proves anything. It was patchy and demonstrably cooler than current warming trends. It is not well explained - but neither is it proof that current warming trends are normal.

Looking at the picture tells me that you get all your information from selective Skeptics sites.

Br Cornelius

Edited March 26, 2011 by Guest

[Big Bad Voodoo]

There is no use pointing at the MWP and saying it proves anything. It was patchy and demonstrably cooler than current warming trends. It is not well explained - but neither is it proof that current warming trends are normal.

Looking at the picture tells me that you get all your information from selective Skeptics sites.

Br Cornelius

First of all I would like to hear more about Milankovich cycles.

Second my info dont get from "selective skeptics sites" as you said. This pic is from wikipedia-global warming. So...

All Im saying ,like you when you said about MWP and LIA, that more research have to be done about global warming. It is not wll explained.

As I said Im not expert. Sure I want to learn more about it.

[Guest]

First of all I would like to hear more about Milankovich cycles.

Second my info dont get from "selective skeptics sites" as you said. This pic is from wikipedia-global warming. So...

All Im saying ,like you when you said about MWP and LIA, that more research have to be done about global warming. It is not wll explained.

As I said Im not expert. Sure I want to learn more about it.

What is particularly interesting is that the MWP wasn't particularly warm, it only really look so in relation to the LIA which was exceptionally cold.

I highly recommend looking into the Milankovich cycle's and Wiki will give you a good account. You will see that they are a series of at least three interlocking cyclic effects with a periodicity of 24K yrs for the shortest cycles (the processional). It is a highly predictable set of variables and so it has been calculated and incorporated into the current climate models.

Br Cornelius

[Big Bad Voodoo]

So you think humans dont have anything with it?

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Also if distance between earth and sun is getting higher isnt logic that earth is cooling down?