Moderators: richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
AverageUser
Posts: 1824
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:21 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Tue Mar 23, 2010 6:00 pm

Quoting mrocktor (Reply 149):
Key words: we adjust. Now, do I trust these clowns to be scientific in their "adjusting"? Hell no. More to the point, there are known problems with the GISS "adjusting": one, two, three.

Do you trust satellite images or satellite data?
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:18 pm

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 150):
Do you trust satellite images or satellite data?

To determine the temperature in 1880? Neither.
 
AverageUser
Posts: 1824
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:21 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Wed Mar 24, 2010 5:20 pm

Quoting mrocktor (Reply 151):
To determine the temperature in 1880? Neither.

Oh, phunny you. I would have meant the modern times. How's it about them?
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:59 pm

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 152):
How's it about them?

Its not the images or the data that are the problem. Its what is done to the data before it turns into your pretty graph. And you know it, so stop this pointless tangent and get to the meat of the issue: show that your pretty graph is based on solid data treated in a scientific manner (open code, for instance, is a good start).

Also, internal emails obtained from NASA (under FOI of course, not like they are open about their problems or anything) indicate that those scientists think their temperature record is less reliable than Hadleys. How bad can a record get, one has to wonder.

Again, I'm calling your bluff. You, sir, have nothing.

Peel away the "NASA said it" argument and nothing is left. No actual critical thinking. No actual grasp of how crucial data treatment is when minute trends in wildly swinging variables are supposedly relevant. Just like 99% of the warmist crowd, you don't really have a scientific approach to this matter. Quoting scientists does not a critical thinker make.

You expect to put up a graph - for which the source data is not public, the processes applied to it are not public, the results of which have known inconsistencies, the creators of which are implicated in intentionally keeping this information hidden, the creators of which are also ideologues and admittedly biased - and you have the gall to expect people here to just accept it?

Really.
 
AverageUser
Posts: 1824
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:21 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:22 pm

Quoting mrocktor (Reply 153):
Its not the images or the data that are the problem. Its what is done to the data before it turns into your pretty graph.

So all satellite data if a forgery, right?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Topic Author
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:42 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 146):
Or is this like arguing about the existence of a god?

I believe in God. Science has not proven, or not proven he exsists, either.

Quoting mrocktor (Reply 153):
you have the gall to expect people here to just accept it?

Yeap, the AGW crowd not only expect that, and demand that, but also do not want us 'non-scientists' to dear to question them, their data, how it was collected, or why there was a need to 'adjust' it.

The GW Hoaxers are all about power control, and money. They are nothing more than the latest scam on the block. This has nothing to do with controling global warming, or climate change, or global cooling. They know they cannot control the climate, so they want to control industry, life styles (except their own), money, and governments.

AlGore is the poster child of the GW Hoaxers. He rides around in huge black SUVs, lives in a 6000 sqft house than comsumes huge amounts of energy, flys around the world in corprate jets, and demands we drive sub-cars that get 35 mpg, or hybrids, never fly, set our thermostates at 62 in the winter, and not use our A/C in the summer, and forces use to buy those stupid curly-q light bulbs that are filled with mercury.

Why is his life style good for him, and others on his side of the GW Hoax crowd, yet it is not good for the masses to enjoy the same comfortable life style?

Some here may have bought into all this BS science, smeared with a political spin on it, but that does not mean we all have to buy into it.

I guess I'll go drive around in my Ford F-150 and burn up some more oil in the form of gasoline.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Thu Mar 25, 2010 1:43 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 155):
The GW Hoaxers are all about power control, and money.

Just a bit less than the denier liars then.

What is the point of abuse like that? If you cannot manage without it, this correspondence is at an end.
 
AverageUser
Posts: 1824
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:21 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Thu Mar 25, 2010 2:06 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 156):
What is the point of abuse like that?

I think it was an attempt to neutralize the ill feeling he got inside from being faced with the reality. Remember, he almost admitted it might be getting warmer! It's about getting back into something safe you know well.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Topic Author
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:13 pm

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 157):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 156):
What is the point of abuse like that?

I think it was an attempt to neutralize the ill feeling he got inside from being faced with the reality. Remember, he almost admitted it might be getting warmer!

First, the reality is that GW is not man-made, it is the AGW Hoaxwers that refuse to accept reality. Second, it does not matter if I am getting warmer, or not. There is nothing I can do about it. Third, none of you guys have ever explained past global warming or global cooling causes. I even asked if it was caused by dinosaur farts.
 
AverageUser
Posts: 1824
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:21 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:29 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 158):

First, the reality is that GW is not man-made, it is the AGW Hoaxwers that refuse to accept reality.

Well, sometimes you need to accept the reality that others won't accept reality. Is there anything more you'd like to add?
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:12 pm

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 159):
Is there anything more you'd like to add?

Its not like we are trying to convince you. We are responding for the benefit of an intelligent third party who might otherwise be mislead by the unsubstantiated drivel you guys post as if it were gospel just because it comes from some fancy government agency.

So, to answer your question, no. No more to add until the next batch of unsubstantiated drivel.
 
Continental
Posts: 5223
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 3:46 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:19 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 158):
First, the reality is that GW is not man-made, it is the AGW Hoaxwers that refuse to accept reality.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 155):
I believe in God. Science has not proven, or not proven he exsists, either.

You seem so willing to accept God as the truth and global warming as a hoax. Why not apply your scientific reasoning for your belief in God to global warming? I'm not telling you to accept global warming, but at least keep your scientific reasoning consistent.
 
AverageUser
Posts: 1824
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:21 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:21 pm

Quoting mrocktor (Reply 160):
No more to add until the next batch of unsubstantiated drivel.

While waiting for that, have you spared any thought on determining what you make of the satellite data. Are the pictures and data of diminishing Arctic sea ice actually forgery coming from the secret backrooms of government offices?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Topic Author
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:54 pm

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 159):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 158):

First, the reality is that GW is not man-made, it is the AGW Hoaxwers that refuse to accept reality.

Well, sometimes you need to accept the reality that others won't accept reality.
Quoting AverageUser (Reply 159):
Is there anything more you'd like to add?
Quoting mrocktor (Reply 160):
So, to answer your question, no. No more to add until the next batch of unsubstantiated drivel.

     

Quoting Continental (Reply 161):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 158):
First, the reality is that GW is not man-made, it is the AGW Hoaxwers that refuse to accept reality.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 155):
I believe in God. Science has not proven, or not proven he exsists, either.

You seem so willing to accept God as the truth and global warming as a hoax. Why not apply your scientific reasoning for your belief in God to global warming? I'm not telling you to accept global warming, but at least keep your scientific reasoning consistent.

God is not the subject here, GW is. God is not being evaluated by scientists full time, and the times he is, the evidence is inconclusive. Some data looked at confirms him, some does not, and some is somewhere inbetween. GW data, OTOH, does have a lot of "adjusted" data to arrive at a conclusion. The conclusion was developed first, then the data adjusted to support it.

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 162):
Are the pictures and data of diminishing Arctic sea ice actually forgery coming from the secret backrooms of government offices?

How much histroical data do we have on sea ice? Virtually none. We have been looking at sea ice data for about 40 or so years, that is as long as we have had a capability to monitor it from space. Before that, we could only estimate the amount of sea ice from ships at sea. We do not know how much sea ice there was in the "little ice age". We have an idea how much land ice there was, but even that data only goes back to the last ice age some 12,000-25,000 years ago.

So, for sea ice, we really don't have anything to compare the current data to.
 
AverageUser
Posts: 1824
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:21 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:58 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 163):
So, for sea ice, we really don't have anything to compare the current data to.

But returning to the current satellite data -- is it valid?
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Fri Mar 26, 2010 2:18 pm

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 164):
But returning to the current satellite data -- is it valid?

The denier liars do not have anything positive to contribute so do not wait too much for an answer.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...0/03/26/2857685.htm?section=justin
A rough summary is that Carter and co in an article in J Geophys Res overegged the effects of the SOI and attributed all changes to SOI variations. Trenberth responded in the same journal to the effect this is an inaccurate analysis. Which is a fairly obvious conclusion as we have been having hot years with neg and positive SOIs. The original authors responded but have had the response knocked back. I hope the reasons for the knockback are published as the original authors are now screaming censorship.

From the above:
Kevin Trenberth from the National Atmospheric Research Unit in Boulder, California, says the paper's conclusions are inaccurate.

"On a year-by-year basis, just in terms of the El Nino, that's something they had, it turns out isolated but they had completely underestimated all of the role on trends and misrepresented the role on the trends which is the global warming component," he said.

"It turns out they had also cut out a lot of the high-frequency noise, the variability that we see, or the weather variability that we see, and as a result they made a strong statement that nearly all the variability in the temperature record was due to El Nino. That's just simply not true."


Dear oh me, deniers doing a spot of flitering, how hishonest and hoaxing was that? Well apparently quite according to Trenberth. Looks as if Carter et al are challenged in the AOV department.
 
4holer
Posts: 2775
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2002 1:47 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Fri Mar 26, 2010 3:27 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 165):
The denier liars

Congratulations on the new put-down. It's cute.

Sir, it does little good to discuss the matter with you and your chorus. I couldn't convince John Travolta or Tom Cruise that their Faith is fiction any more than I can you. (I've really tried to avoid this thread for that reason.)

Conversely, most of those you refer to by such clever put-downs are genuinely open to changing their viewpoints should actual valid and unmassaged data show that your catastrophic scenarios are in fact on the way. But while you see your Church's bishops and cardinals words and numbers as gospel, we do not. For good reason.

Do. Better. Science.
The theory will sink or swim.
But until then, sorry, I'm not buying any snake oil this week.
Ghosts appear and fade away.....................
 
AverageUser
Posts: 1824
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:21 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Fri Mar 26, 2010 3:47 pm

Somebody asked for more graphs:

Joe Romm seems to have updated the graph, thus:




In other newsworthy items:

http://www.climateprogress.com/

[Edited 2010-03-23 06:13:09]
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Sat Mar 27, 2010 12:44 am

Quoting 4holer (Reply 166):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 165):
The denier liars

Congratulations on the new put-down. It's cute.

Sir, it does little good to discuss the matter with you and your chorus. I couldn't convince John Travolta or Tom Cruise that their Faith is fiction any more than I can you. (I've really tried to avoid this thread for that reason.)

Actually you do not understand my position at all. And obviously you did not read these threads some years ago where Klaus and I argued vigourously and usefully. The problem is that the denier liars start irritating by insisting on inserting the word "hoax" as often as possible. Then we had a number of years when the denier liars insisted the world was cooling since 1998. Obviously from the data it was not. So the swich is in to questioning the data. First claim that the original records are lost, not available or god knows what when they are all freely available. Then complain the record does not go back far enough, then complain when someone develops a method to splic partial records together.

You talk about

Quoting 4holer (Reply 166):
actual valid and unmassaged data

It is there. Some have claimed thatt it shows we are creating a problem. Now you claim it does not, but you have no evidence at all to support that point of view. Where is your alternate view to the Romm graphs shown by AU. It is not that I am enamoured of the work of climate scientists, I am simply repelled by the lack of honesty from the denier liars. So in a contest, I pick the GW hoaxers over the denier liars every day. Get you act together and I might pay some attention to the denial side. Meanwhile, interesting graphs and maps AU.
 
Continental
Posts: 5223
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 3:46 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Sat Mar 27, 2010 3:33 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 163):
God is not the subject here, GW is. God is not being evaluated by scientists full time, and the times he is, the evidence is inconclusive. Some data looked at confirms him, some does not, and some is somewhere inbetween. GW data, OTOH, does have a lot of "adjusted" data to arrive at a conclusion. The conclusion was developed first, then the data adjusted to support it.

Neither God nor GW is the subject in my statement, they simply complement my questioning of your scientific reasoning. Can you point me to some peer reviewed material that supports the existence of God? I'm not saying God doesn't exist, I'd just be interested in seeing it.

My point is, you can't use scientific reasoning only in certain cases to support your opinions. In the case of God and GW, both may or may not exist. Nobody knows for certain the answers.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Sat Mar 27, 2010 2:05 pm

Quoting Continental (Reply 169):
My point is, you can't use scientific reasoning only in certain cases to support your opinions. In the case of God and GW, both may or may not exist. Nobody knows for certain the answers.

Then again as someone whose name alas I cannot remember but the phrase was his not mine, is what odds would you like before you play Russian roulette. One in a hundred you might think worth playing, but the classicall RRoulette has one in 6 chance of being killed where the odds with GW are more like 5 in 6. How many takers would you get for R Roulette with a revolver having 5 bullets in the chamber.

Just because it does not make a noise, or be visible out of the window, does not mean it might not be there. It was always obvious that humans are as a group not well designed to take notice of that sort of issue. Which does not mean that increasing levels of carbon dioxide might not be a serious problem.

And please on proof. Basically you cannot prove anything. You can fail to disprove whatever it was after more intensive testing. So nobody would imagine in the absence of a god wandering around and mentioning that he was god that you would have a snowball in hells chance of proving it, the problem for many of us is that a god just does not seem at all likely.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Topic Author
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Sat Mar 27, 2010 4:11 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 170):
Quoting Continental (Reply 169):
My point is, you can't use scientific reasoning only in certain cases to support your opinions. In the case of God and GW, both may or may not exist. Nobody knows for certain the answers.


Then again as someone whose name alas I cannot remember but the phrase was his not mine, is what odds would you like before you play Russian roulette. One in a hundred you might think worth playing, but the classicall RRoulette has one in 6 chance of being killed where the odds with GW are more like 5 in 6. How many takers would you get for R Roulette with a revolver having 5 bullets in the chamber.

Baroque, are you now saying that GW has an 83%+ chance of killing all man-kind? If that is the case, then would the Earth be trying to kill off things that hurt it. Would that be a natueral thing for Earth to do? If so, why should we interfer with that natueral process.

We still do not know everything, as you know. 20 years ago we did not know about El Nino' or La Nena'. We know some about them now, and how they effect to Pacific Ocean, and Earth's climate. The question is now, what else do we not know that does the same?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Topic Author
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Sat Mar 27, 2010 4:44 pm

" Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, apologized for his organization’s handling of complaints about errors in its report.

He also apologized for describing as “voodoo science” an Indian Government report which challenged the IPCC’s claims about the rapid melting of Himalayan glaciers.

But Dr Pachauri, 70, rejected calls for his resignation and insisted he would remain as chairman until after publication of the IPCC’s next report in 2014.

He claimed he had the support of all the world’s governments and denied that, by remaining in post, he was undermining the IPCC’s chances of regaining credibility with the public."


http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...es-response-criticism-wont-resign/

Well, Pachauri is right about one thing. He has not hurt the creditability of the IPCC. You cannot hurt something that does not exsists.
 
AverageUser
Posts: 1824
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:21 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Sat Mar 27, 2010 5:20 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 171):
If so, why should we interfer with that natueral process.

Then, if the warming cause if lost already no matter what we do, why do you want to keep pointing it out? I mean, you could happily stay at home and carry on with your normal business, while we hoaxers worry about matters, needlessly wasting our energy. Do you pity us or what?
 
Continental
Posts: 5223
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 3:46 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:43 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 170):
Then again as someone whose name alas I cannot remember but the phrase was his not mine, is what odds would you like before you play Russian roulette. One in a hundred you might think worth playing, but the classicall RRoulette has one in 6 chance of being killed where the odds with GW are more like 5 in 6. How many takers would you get for R Roulette with a revolver having 5 bullets in the chamber.

Just because it does not make a noise, or be visible out of the window, does not mean it might not be there. It was always obvious that humans are as a group not well designed to take notice of that sort of issue. Which does not mean that increasing levels of carbon dioxide might not be a serious problem.

And please on proof. Basically you cannot prove anything. You can fail to disprove whatever it was after more intensive testing. So nobody would imagine in the absence of a god wandering around and mentioning that he was god that you would have a snowball in hells chance of proving it, the problem for many of us is that a god just does not seem at all likely

You're preaching to the choir buddy. I agree that at some point there is so much evidence that you accept something as the truth. I mean the gene theory is just a theory, but every rational, sane scientist accepts it as the truth.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Sun Mar 28, 2010 10:59 am

Quoting Continental (Reply 174):
You're preaching to the choir buddy. I agree that at some point there is so much evidence that you accept something as the truth. I mean the gene theory is just a theory, but every rational, sane scientist accepts it as the truth.

Indeed. The only value of a thread like this is diligent folk like AU come across data of which I was unaware. Gene theory is an interesting case in point. Rather amusingly the Mendelian part of it may well have had associated with it faulty experiments but faulty experiments that might hold a lesson for the denier liars too.

Not long after the good monk (the bad monk being the leader of our opposition, Tony Abbott, an ex Jesuit aka the Mad Monk) published, there was a rebirth of Lamarckian views, esp Kammerer in Austria. The story is all set out in Arthur Koestler's "The case of the Midwife Toad". The neo Lamarkians were major movers in a publication that is now mainstram biology, but they missed the point that the pea experiments of Mendel could be tested using the chi square test that had just been introduced. Instead of attacking Darwian and Mendelian genetics as they did, had they applied a chi square test to Mendels data, they would have found the results were too goo to be true. The guess is that he had told his gardeners what he thought would happen and the obligingly removed plants that were surplus to his predictions. The moral for the denier liars, is that there are improvements and suggestions that can be made to climate science, but not in the way that they go about it.

Equally, interestingly, is that Ted Steele, a one-time colleague of mine is getting somewhere these days with his experiments showing that indeed events during life can influence the genome in some very small and specific ways, which still leave Mendelian changes as dominant.

Or another way of trying to state it, really standard GOP type tactics will get you nowhere in science.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Topic Author
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:46 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 175):
Or another way of trying to state it, really standard GOP type tactics will get you nowhere in science.

Why do you say that? the GOP has supported some science and rejected others. This is no different than the DNC. The only difference is the science subjects each support. There are exceptions to individual members in each party, so I am only speaking in general terms.
 
AverageUser
Posts: 1824
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:21 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:55 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 176):
the GOP has supported some science and rejected others.

Can you identify some particular pieces of science with the GOP seal of approval and some of those without it?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Topic Author
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:03 pm

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 177):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 176):
the GOP has supported some science and rejected others.

Can you identify some particular pieces of science with the GOP seal of approval and some of those without it?

The GOP has been a major supporter of NASA, and just about all its aerospace and space scientific research. The GOP has traditionally been against human embreo research if cells from aborted babies are used. The GOP does support other medical research science, but generally rejects GW science.

But, it seems the German people have been loosing faith in climate change/global warming lately, with support dropping from 62% a few years ago to about 42% now. I guess this past winter has brought questions to them?

http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20100327-26163.html

[Edited 2010-03-29 06:04:16]
 
AverageUser
Posts: 1824
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:21 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:22 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 178):

The GOP has been a major supporter of NASA,

Hmm I suppose everyone was, what party was JFK from?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 178):
but [GOP] generally rejects GW science.

"Rejection of science" seems like an apt term indeed.


Meanwhile in the news:

Record high temperature for the month of March the 27th day this year in Lund, Southern Sweden, since measurements began in 1753 -- 19,3 degrees C.

http://lund.lny.se/rekordvarme-i-lund-141081/
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Fri Apr 02, 2010 9:41 am

In one reference the author evidently does not know the difference between extrapolation and interpolation. Might as well give up at that point.

But in another we learn:
For example, I wouldn't put it past the Russians to be behind some of the disinformation to help further their energy interests.

Oh dear, so the contrarians when not being funded by big oil are all part of a Russian plot, I might have known.

       
 
AverageUser
Posts: 1824
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:21 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:37 pm

Another graph:

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/418822main_global-temp-bar-full.jpg


This map, produced by scientists at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, shows the 10-year average (2000-2009) temperature anomaly relative to the 1951-1980 mean. The largest temperature increases are in the Arctic and the Antarctic Peninsula. Image Credit: NASA/GISS


Related video:

http://anon.nasa-global.edgesuite.ne...os/GSFC_20100121_GlobalTempAvg.asx
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Topic Author
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:07 pm

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 181):
Another graph:
Quoting AverageUser (Reply 181):
This map, produced by scientists at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, shows the 10-year average (2000-2009) temperature anomaly relative to the 1951-1980 mean. The largest temperature increases are in the Arctic and the Antarctic Peninsula. Image Credit: NASA/GISS

That is one of the charts produced by NASA they now say is flawed.
 
AverageUser
Posts: 1824
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:21 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:24 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 182):
That is one of the charts produced by NASA they now say is flawed.

Seriously, you really must do something to the Goddard Institute of Space Studies -- they continue to host it as if it were for real. Must be another den of the hoaxers?

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Tue Apr 06, 2010 3:29 pm

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 183):
Must be another den of the hoaxers?

Yes it is, if you wish to use that term, and their temperature record is garbage.

Here is what NASA scientist Dr. Reto A. Ruedy had to say about their temperature record:

"Continue using NCDC’s data for the U.S. means and Phil Jones’ [HADCRU3] data for the global means. (…)
We are basically a modeling group and were forced into rudimentary analysis of global observed data in the 70s and early 80s. (…)
Now we happily combine NCDC’s and Hadley Center data to … evaluate our model results.”

So, this is not an independent data set - it is compromised by the garbage produced by CRU. The "we deleted the data" CRU temperature record is better than GISS, by their own admission.

And here is Dr. Hansen:
"we extrapolate station measurements as much as 1200 km. This allows us to include results for the full Arctic. In 2005 this turned out to be important, as the Arctic had a large positive temperature anomaly. We thus found 2005 to be the warmest year in the record, while the British did not and initially NOAA also did not.
In other words, the "warmest year on record" resulted from their "extrapolation" of temperatures to locations over a thousand kilometers away from measuring stations - not on actual data. Given their history on "adjustments", this is entirely unsurprising. Those red dots in the arctic on your pretty picture? Not actual measurements.

So no, NASA is most emphatically not an unbiased and trustworthy entity in this matter. They are, in the figure of Dr. James Hansen himself, deeply involved in the Climategate affair, their temperature record is dependent on the compromised CRU data and has several known faults of its own (ground station cherry picking, "homogenization" that somehow always introduces warming, raw data deletion - among others).

They have already revised their claims several times due to these problems (identified by some of the leading skeptics). And recent documentation obtained via FOIA shows the internal goings on at Goddard to be as unscientific as Climategate revealed CRU to be. You can see examples here, here and here.

This should be enough to address your pseudo-argument ("NASA said so").
 
AverageUser
Posts: 1824
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:21 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Tue Apr 06, 2010 3:51 pm

Quoting mrocktor (Reply 184):

Yes it is, if you wish to use that term, and their temperature record is garbage.

Including any and all of the satellites, I presume? The recent Arctic ice loss must be just a token of symphaty the ice takes in order to comply with the hoaxer-originated NASA results?
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:32 pm

From: a symposium at the recent American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in San Diego which looks at the sources and strategies of scepticism to climate change science. Just a small set of extracts.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow...tories/2010/2859986.htm#transcript

Transcript

Robyn Williams: This time, a special on the critics of climate science. Only this week, the president of the Royal Society of London Martin Rees on a visit to Australia told us once more that mainstream science is in agreement; climate is changing, it's due to us and we need to worry. But why is this attitude, confirmed by leaders of academies and researchers in the field, so much disputed by so-called sceptics? Let me take you to a symposium set up by the American Association for the Advancement of Science especially to illuminate this quandary with facts. Five speakers, and the first is Riley Dunlap from Oklahoma State University, on science books.
......
William Freudenburg: So, are you getting good and depressed now? What's a good scientist to do? Well, maybe pay a little attention in a different way.
..
Some of his other research that you didn't hear about, an earlier study he did with Jacques and Freeman, found 141 books expressing scepticism about anything environmental. And in that earlier study, 92% of the books were from conservative think-tanks. And this is not by any subtle way of doing the math, either the author worked for it, they published it, or both. In essence, there would not be a so-called scepticism literature if it were not for the work of some well funded, hard working, skilled in PR, conservative think-tanks.
.......

So how do you test that? I'm going to give you three quick approaches. One is Seth Borenstein, one of the reporters who is still working today who knows something about science and climate...when was the last month that global temperatures were below average? Anyone remember? A global long-term average. The answer is February 1994 by three ten-thousandths of one degree, it was really close but it was below average. That's 192 consecutive months. Those of you who know anything about flipping coins, will it be hotter or colder?.. know that basically what you have is a binomial random variable, and if you're really good at doing the math you'll know that to get heads 192 times in a row you have a probability with (if I've typed that correctly) 58 zeros before you get to the first one.

Now imagine! You've just flipped a coin that's come up heads 192 times in a row and you're being accused of having a coin that's loaded to come up tails. That's really pretty spectacular. By the way, if you don't think that three ten-thousandths of one degree is enough, the last time when temperature was one one-hundredth of a degree Celsius below average, below the long-term average on a global scale was, guess what, a quarter of a century ago right now; 300 consecutive months. To do that you need about 90 zeros. The probability is less than...if you have 100 zeros does that make it a googolplex? It's a bigger number than I know what to call it, but 90 zeros in a row. That's the probability that the globe is really getting colder instead of hotter. That's the real probability.
.......
But we all know that anything associated with the IPCC in any way gets attacked savagely as not being credible. So a third test, also working on the fact that science tends to be self-correcting over time, is to take advantage of some other work by Max Boykoff who found that if you look at the prestige newspapers of the US; Washington Post, LA Times, Wall Street Journal; there was a clear bias. At the very same time when Naomi Oreskes' work was showing that basically all scientists with any credentials in climate science were saying it's real, it's happening and humans are part of the cause, over half of the report in these prestige newspapers said there's a lot of controversy in science, they can't figure it out.

With my student Violetta Muselli we decided, hey, if what you want is not a fair test but a conservative test, one that starts out with a data source that the contrarians should be really happy about because the contrarians are getting their point of view into the newspapers whereas the scientists are not, what we'll do is to look at the same four newspapers but we'll look at what the journalists call science stories. And this is something...we cheated, we talked to journalists and said, 'Why is this, you're quoting all these politicians.' And their answer is, 'Well, for us, global climate change has become a policy story. So first you give 'the IPCC reported today that the figure will be 17.3' and then you might give a quote from an environmentalist. You'll certainly give a quote from the American Enterprise Institute or somebody who hates environmentalists, and that's supposed to be balanced.
........

So if you put together the work of Naomi Oreskes, looking at the scientific literature, she found that roughly 75% agreed that the scientific consensus is correct. Nobody said it's not happening. Boykoff and Boykoff in their policy stories on climate in these same four newspapers, the majority of the findings said either that it's no big deal or else the findings are in debate. What we find is that 85% of all the stories about new and emerging science since whatever is the latest IPCC assessment at the time of the article show that conditions are worse that we thought. It's a factor of 23:1 in favour of the science is getting worse as opposed to a factor of 10:1 in the opposite direction, which is what you'd think if you looked at Max Boykoff's findings.
........
Next, an historian of science, Naomi Oreskes of the University California, San Diego.
......
As we all know, everyone in this room now recognises for a long time now, really for more than 20 years, a big gap between the scientific understanding of anthropogenic global warming and the way the American people see the question. There are lots of polls that we can cite but one that I've always liked a lot is Anthony Leiserowitz's work where back in 2007 he and his colleagues were able to show that 72% of Americans were completely or mostly convinced that global warming was happening. So that was the good news of his study. The bad news was that nearly half thought that scientists were still arguing. So this big gap between what was going on in the scientific community where a clear consensus had emerged about global warming, and the way the American people viewed it, not surprisingly given everything we've just seen about press coverage.

.....

Of course as we all know in 1995 that predicted warming became detectible, so scientists had made a clear prediction by '95, they believed that that prediction was coming true, and as we all know the 1995 Second Assessment Report declared that the balance of evidence suggest discernable human influence on global climate. But Americans don't just think that scientists are still debating. Again, as some of our other colleagues have pointed out, they also, many of them, at least 40%, maybe 50%, depending upon which poll you look at...public opinion is extremely fickle and goes up and down with whatever the latest events in the news are...but about 40% to 50% do seem to still think that if there is warming it can be explained by natural variability. Again, what I call blaming the sun. And of course again this is in contrast to the scientific evidence, in AR4 the IPCC explicitly said 'it is extremely unlikely that global climate change in the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing'. So we have this big gap between public opinion and what the scientific community has been trying to communicate for a long time. And, as we all know, in recent months the public opinion has taken a turn for the worse.

So the question that I've been interested in is, why is there such a gap between scientific knowledge and public perception? I think we know that one reason for sure is that the balanced framework that so many journalists rely on unduly weighs outlier views. So we've talked about that a lot already, but it seems to me there is an important point for this audience which is how scientists think about the problem. Actually most scientists, it seems to me, don't spend most of their time really worrying about the balance framework in the media, what they worry about more or what they invoke if you ask them why the public are confused is what we historians and sociologists would call the deficit model. That is to say, we tend to assume that the public are confused because they have a deficit of scientific knowledge, education and cognitive skills. That is to say that they're scientifically illiterate.

So if the problem is a deficit, then the remedy for it is a surfeit. So it seems to me that the scientific community has succumbed to or fallen into or pursued what I would call a supply side response. You see this all around, including very much so in our society here today, that we try to supply good information with public outreach efforts, K-12 science education and various statements on web pages. That is to say, efforts to supply the necessary information. And there are many examples of this, but since we're here at AAAS, one of my favourites is our AAAS Press Room which recently hosted a Climate Change Town Hall. If you actually read this web page you find it's filled with fantastic information, but how many people are going to really read this, how many people are going to take the time, how many people in the public even know that we have a AAAS Press Room?
.........
Western Fuels was a consortium of coal producers, mainly in the Powder River basin, and they did this by hiring a PR firm, a group known as Bracy Williams & Co, and a set of market researchers, Cambridge Reports, to specifically plan a strategy, to test that strategy, and if it were successful, to implement it. The number one point of this strategy was to reposition global warming as theory, not fact. That is to say, it's just a theory, it's just an idea, we don't really know for sure if it's true.

So step one was to cast doubt on the fact of global warming, and then step two actually was construct it as a bad fact, and to construct it as a bad fact in two senses; bad in that it was bad news and nobody likes bad news, and also bad in the sense that it was untrue. So it was both false and something that you didn't want to know. So they began with a series of ad campaigns which they ran in print media throughout the country but particularly in markets where they thought that people would be sympathetic to this propose. So they ran ads like this; 'If the Earth is getting warmer, then why is Kentucky getting colder?' It's the 'why is there a blizzard in Washington DC' strategy.
......
Here's an example of how it worked. So they're going to meet with editors and writers at the Bowling Green Daily News, and then here it is, Bowling Green Daily News, 'Hot Debate, Global Warming, Bowling Green Now Battleground in Heated Global Warming Dispute'. I love this, no climate scientist has gone to Bowling Green but yet it's now a battleground in this big dispute. So here it is being constructed not as a scientific consensus but as a raging debate.

So after doing this test campaign then they analyse the results through focus groups, and they showed that in fact attitude change could be marketed, that people were receptive to attitude change and that you could change how people thought about the question of federal legislation by presenting information of this type.
......
And so these conclusions, that you needed to recruit scientists, were then incorporated into step two of the campaign, and that was the production of a video called The Greening of Planet Earth: The effects of carbon dioxide on the biosphere. This was the second part about the bad facts versus good facts, that they would promote an alternative fact, a good fact, a happy fact, that increased atmospheric CO2 would be good for the planet because it would enhance plant productivity through CO2 fertilisation.

Well, basically you can kind of imagine it, but the video then presents scientists, and most of them aren't actually climate scientists, they're mostly actually agronomists from the US Department of Agriculture making the claim that we know for a fact that carbon dioxide increases agricultural productivity, and in fact not just agricultural productivity but productivity of all plants. Therefore this will lead to, as they say, 'a tremendous greening of the planet Earth', and then triumphant music plays and you see the whole globe...there's a picture of a globe, and the whole globe, even the Arctic, the Sahara, the outback of Australia, it all turns green, about the colour of that lady's shirt. So it's a very, very positive message, it's all good, the scientists are all very kindly-looking, they're very nice, they're very calm, and they just tell this good news message over and over again.
.......
So we see that in a sense the opponents of scientific information have been more organised, more systematic, and in a weird way more scientific. They actually studied the problem, they tested it, they ran a campaign, they saw how it worked, and based on the evidence that they got from the test campaign they incorporated those conclusions into this video, which they then distributed to public libraries, university libraries, all across the country. And you can in fact find this video in the online catalogues of many university and public libraries across the country.
......
So does this mean that I think that the scientific community should emulate the coal industry? Well, probably not. But it does raise some questions that I think we need to think hard about. Why are we so unscientific about our own communication? Why don't we study this question and take seriously the evidence that we can develop from the work of professionals who study communication questions? Should we hire PR firms to market our views? And how would it affect our public stature and credibility if we did?

Hiring PR firms is probably not the best way to enhance scientific credibility, I'm not advocating that, but since what the scientific community has been doing in the past has clearly not been effective, it suggests that it might be worth considering some alternatives. Thank you very much.
.......
Professor Stephen Schneider from Stanford, the man who once predicted that the Earth may have been cooling, and then he looked further and changed his view because the calculations revealed the opposite. His latest book is Science as a Contact Sport.
...
There's no such thing as a good scientist who isn't a sceptic. I changed my opinion in 1970 from cooling to warming, published it first, it's one of my proudest moments in science because we found, as the evidence accumulated, that there were a number of reasons, it's all explained in chapter one of Science as a Contact Sport, and I still have to hear things from those famous climate professors, the ones that publish all the papers in the referee journals, professors Limbaugh and Will, you know, about how... 'Oh Schneider, he's just an environmentalist for all temperatures', it's a great line!

But the idea of maintaining political consistency when the evidence changes is what I would call either closed-minded or lying, there really isn't any other opportunity to describe it any other way. That, Naomi, is part of the problem, is that scientific people inhabit this culture, and that culture is you're supposed to have full disclosure. Well, full disclosure doesn't really work in a sound bite system, and in science it's not okay to try to give partial accountings, and that is certainly not the case in the advocacy world. The purpose in the advocacy world is to win for the client or the ideology. In science that is a quick ticket to not getting funded, not getting promoted and not getting your papers accepted. So you don't start with a level playing field because the two epistemologies of advocacy and science are so diametrical that it therefore is actually career counterproductive for scientists to try to act in the same behavioural way that the opponents do.
......
Anyhow, what's the other trial? Standard of evidence, preponderance. More likely than not. By that standard we've had global warming since 1970 and probably since the mid '80s, preponderance on anthropogenic component. So we're fighting somewhere between the 99 and the other, and IPCC recently said that it was very likely, meaning more than 90%, that humans were part of the last 50 years, and that actually is conservative, as somebody said.

Okay, so it's preponderant. So the difference between a sceptic and a denier is a sceptic is questioning every component of a problem but when there's an accumulated preponderance of evidence you don't deny it. If you deny it then either you don't know the literature or frankly you're a liar, and that is exactly what I think Naomi and others were trying to say, because if you are in preponderance denial then you have no understanding of systems analysis. Systems analysis is not like test tube science, it is not a controlled experiment where you can pick up that glass and test your hypothesis of acid or base with one experiment.

We don't falsify in systems science, we work on preponderance. You falsify by a community effort taking place over 25 years when Spencer and Christy misled the world on why the atmosphere was cooling based upon their satellite reconstruction. And I never minded that, science is tough and they tried it and they were first, they were pioneers, that was fine. What I minded about those guys was that they not only insisted they were right with high degree of accuracy but that the guys who were wrong were doing it on purpose, and you can find that in their blogs.

And then it turned out they forget satellites fly in a proton soup, slows them down, lowers them, changes the angle of the orbit and that's why they had a false cooling trend. Did they come out and admit that? Did Congressman Barton, like he did to Mike Mann, pull them up there and demand they show every email and everything they ever did? It's completely asymmetric, as we heard, and why is the media not covering that story? That's the story. This is a story of the politics of denial and the use of power to abuse that by pretending that balance is a basis for something when in fact the only doctrine that's true is not balance where you quote the outliers, it's perspective where you quote everybody and you report the relative credibility on each of those positions based upon the long established preponderances which are determined not by individuals but by large groups that are reviewed. And that's very, very lousy headline-making and very poor titillation, it's just good truth.

Anyhow, the last chapter of the book (I won't wave it again) used to be called 'Can Democracy Survive Complexity?' and my National Geographic editors told me that was too downer, so it's now called 'What Keeps Me Up at Night'. But climate change is just one issue, it's one issue. Same thing in health care, same thing in strategic defence, same thing in education. Anyhow, the problem is that it's not just the media, I yelled at the media, but how about us? What do scientists do? Nobody is paid to sit there and repeat what we already know, and it was already said by one of you that it's pretty hard to get 'same old, same old' in there. So you've got to do something new, no matter how irrelevant, or you have to say it ain't so.

I've got to be real blunt; how many old men who have nothing to do with climate science are out there saying it ain't so and getting coverage in the newspaper when they would have no prayer based on anything they're still capable of doing? There are a lot of reasons why this goes on. Why are they being covered? Who cares what a petroleum geologist thinks about climate? They're as competent to discuss climate as I am horizontal drilling. They are not experts, they don't belong in that debate.

.........
Why do you think the media, in my opinion, have grabbed on these three IPCC errors so far? This disinformation engine is investing all that money and all they could do is find three? I'm more arrogant. I think if I took my best students and you gave me a month I think we could probably find ten, maybe even 20. But there's about (I haven't counted them) 1,000 conclusions roughly in a report, 1,000 pages, one a page, something in that order.

Anybody reported the real story which is that despite the fact this is a human institution with 200 people from many countries, two rounds of review and review editors which keeps the error rate low, it's still a human institution, you're going to have errors, and they're not acceptable and we're going to work out ways to have an even lower probability next time. And stating that a glacier is going to melt in 2035 doesn't pass a scientific laugh test. If I had seen that, it's a bell curve with a long tail, and that's exactly why we have confidences and that's how almost every conclusion is.

Why is the story not equally that, yes, these guys are batting 99.90, let me see, that's three times what it takes to get into the baseball hall of fame. You tell me any other epistemology that has to deal with complex systems science. Medical diagnosis? Forget it, 99%, no prayer. Investment banking? Oh God, I don't even know if they're over half. And military? They're probably better than half. So that's so unbalanced it defies imagination, yet I have seen almost no mainstream studies on it.
........
This was what Congressman Rohrabacher told me when I testified two years ago, that the absence of warming had falsified global warming, once again using the false god of Karl Popper. And of course I then quickly pointed out that if we had cherry-picked the end points from '92 to 2002 we're going to hell in a hand basket, and if you just run a running mean it looks like nothing has changed. So what happened in the last ten years...I don't have time to give you the science but we haven't had any major El Ninos apart from the '98 one and the Sun has been relatively on vacation, now it's coming back and we have an El Nino...watch this year break all the records. And I hope that Greenpeace doesn't go out there and say, 'You see, we told you so,' because it's one damn year guys, that doesn't mean anything. One decade doesn't mean much, climate is a 30-year process of running means, and that's something that is a really bad political story and an absolutely disastrous media story, too long. That is a story we've got to tell, and of course as you see I'm very shy about telling it. Thank you.

Robyn Williams: The ever-shy Stephen Schneider from Stanford University. Science as a Contact Sport is his latest book, and he also has a chapter in the book Seeing Further about the Royal Society of London, edited by Bill Bryson. You've been listening to a forum about climate from the AAAS in San Diego, and my thanks to Natasha Mitchell for help with that recording.


Pip pip
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Topic Author
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Wed Apr 07, 2010 2:01 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 186):
Pip pip

Here is todays news.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-posts-latest-start-on-record.html

But the winter season is just now starting in Antarctica. Maybe in 6-7 months we will see something similar in the Southern Hemisphere?

What will that do to the GW Hoax?
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Wed Apr 07, 2010 2:11 pm

Oh dear me how desperate are the deniers. Wait until Sept. All that ice is one year ice and its chances of being around in Sept are yours and Buckley's. See reply 167. Or N Oresckes:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 186):
over half of the report in these prestige newspapers said there's a lot of controversy in science, they can't figure it out.
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Wed Apr 07, 2010 2:26 pm

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 185):
The recent Arctic ice loss must be just a token of symphaty the ice takes in order to comply with the hoaxer-originated NASA results?

Is compensated by Antartic ice increase. The planet - surprise - is subject to regional variations. Remember, you are still FAR from proving anthropogenic global warming even if all the arctic ice dissapears (which it will not - any time soon or at all).

Let us recap what you have to do:

1. Prove that current temperature trends unequivocally indicate warming beyond the typical post-ice age long term trend
* Do not use data sets that are under suspicion of cherry picking (Yamal), station dropping (GHCN), goal directed "adjusting" (CRU, GISS) unless they have been cleared by an independent audit

2. Prove that the warming you proved in (1) is unprecedented
* Don't forget that Dr. Phil Jones himself has stated that even the CRU/IPCC fudged data does not support this.

3. Prove that CO2 concentration is the cause of the unprecedented warming you proved in (1) and (2)
* You will have to conclusively, causally prove this, not merely show correlation. This means eliminating all natural factors that could be causal to warming, such as (but not limited to) cloud coverage variation, solar activity variation, water vapor concentration, ocean heat storage variations, etc.

4. Prove that you know the sensitivity of the temperatures to the CO2 concentration you have shown in (3) to be causal to warming
* Is it linear? Logarithmic? Exponential? Which are the feedback mechanisms? Are they positive? Negative? How much? Again, single variable statistical regression over 20 years is unacceptable, you must account for all the known data - including the CO2 free Medieval Warm Period.

5. Based on the definite model you demonstrated in (4), identify the temperature shift expected assuming mankind continues current CO2 emission trends. Prove that this temperature shift will cause catastrophic consequences.
* Sea level rise? Crop failure? Himalayan glacier melting? Hurricanes? Amazon drought? No debunked nonsense here please.

Almost 190 posts into the thread and still step one unaccomplished.
 
AverageUser
Posts: 1824
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:21 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Wed Apr 07, 2010 2:29 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 187):
Here is todays news.

Whom are you supposed to be humouring?

While this year’s melting season has started late, it probably won’t have an impact on the extent of ice in the summer, the group said.

“The ice that formed late in the season is thin and will melt quickly when temperatures rise,” the NSIDC said.


Quoting mrocktor (Reply 189):

Is compensated by Antartic ice increase.

And even if there was an Antarctic increase, your Antarctic ice will move into the Arctic exactly by what means?

[Edited 2010-04-07 07:46:48]
 
windy95
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Wed Apr 07, 2010 5:04 pm

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png

That pesky ice just will not melt like the alarmist want it to...
 
User avatar
speedygonzales
Posts: 663
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:01 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Wed Apr 07, 2010 8:25 pm

Quoting mrocktor (Reply 189):
* Do not use data sets that are under suspicion of cherry picking (Yamal), station dropping (GHCN), goal directed "adjusting" (CRU, GISS) unless they have been cleared by an independent audit

Translation: Do not use data sets the foil-hatters don't like because they show the truth.
Ignorance kills. :tombstone:
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Wed Apr 07, 2010 8:38 pm

Quoting SpeedyGonzales (Reply 192):
Translation: Do not use data sets the foil-hatters don't like because they show the truth.

But also terribly bad luck that Prof Schneider is recorded in
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow...tories/2010/2859986.htm#transcript
as saying
I changed my opinion in 1970 from cooling to warming, published it first, it's one of my proudest moments in science because we found, as the evidence accumulated, that there were a number of reasons, it's all explained in chapter one of Science as a Contact Sport,

AND
I've got to be real blunt; how many old men who have nothing to do with climate science are out there saying it ain't so and getting coverage in the newspaper when they would have no prayer based on anything they're still capable of doing?
 
AverageUser
Posts: 1824
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:21 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Wed Apr 07, 2010 8:49 pm

Quoting windy95 (Reply 191):
That pesky ice just will not melt like the alarmist want it to...

A fresh graph ... and melting will be getting even easier as the volume of the ice has decreased, with less multi-year ice


http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100406_Figure3.png
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:54 am

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 194):
A fresh graph ... and melting will be getting even easier as the volume of the ice has decreased, with less multi-year ice

Let me see how the l ds will do with that.

1. You used a linear curve to a process that I hereby declare to be non-linear. Of course if I did an AOV on second, third and fourth degree fits, I would find the higher order terms produced no significant increase in variation explained.

2. Clearly 2005 was a tipping point and you should have done a linear fit to data from 2005 to 2010 showing that by 2014 everything will be back to 1978 levels..

3. Multi year ice does not count, we are using late March extent this week (may have to change next year when it proves an inconvenient measure).

4. There is no correlation given with ice extent and warming. The decrease in ice extent might be due to something else entirely such as the Trolls having come out of the Hall of the Mountain King (memo to Speedy, keep those bloody things under control!!).

5. I was able to stick my head in the sand last time you showed that graph so why should it not work now?

6. As Prof Schneider said 'You see, we told you so,' because it's one damn year guys, that doesn't mean anything. One decade doesn't mean much, climate is a 30-year process of running means, and that's something that is a really bad political story and an absolutely disastrous media story, too long.

7. Oh hang on this is a 33 year story on the graph. Far too long to be significant.
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:59 pm

You forgot: how exactly does loking at one pole of the planet show global warming, caused by humans, that is catastrophic?
 
SA7700
Posts: 2930
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 9:38 pm

RE: Sen Inhofe Ask DOJ Investigation Into GW

Sat Apr 10, 2010 3:33 pm

Several posts were previously deleted from this thread, because a small selection of members chose to post off-topic remarks and exchange personal insults. The thread was left open for further debate.

Unfortunately the same selection of members has decided to persist with their hijacking of this thread with off-topic remarks, personal insults and general disrespect. This thread will now be locked for further comments. Any posts added after the thread lock will be removed for housekeeping purposes only.


Rgds

SA7700
When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud (Grand Designs)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: afcjets, ltbewr, prebennorholm, wingman and 70 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos