Page 31 of 161 FirstFirst ... 212728293031323334354181131 ... LastLast
Results 751 to 775 of 4001
  1. #751
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    If it were that simple, then it should be simple enough to model accurately, correct?

    One of your main assertions regarding this issue that the climate models are not accurate enough.

    Which is it, simple or complex?
    When talking long term, it's simple. As I stated before, equilibrium is reached when the outgoing energy is equal to the incoming energy At any given time, there is also latent energy. It's the latent energy that gets very complex in nature. There is almost always an imbalance between the incoming and outgoing energy. The best scientists are not equipped to better than speculate on the modeling of any short term change. There are simple too many variables, and we cannot keep all but one static for testing.

    Again, I base my conclusions over the fact that long term temperature changes match solar changes rather well. I have found probable explanations for all the points that temperature does not follow solar changes, and it's laughable for anyone to think there will ever be a 100% correlation when there are so many variable.

    The simple model that shows a 0.18% increase in solar output results in a 0.93 w^2 meter increase in radiative forcing is a simple thing that I fail to understand how anyone can dismiss. In another forum, I has someone go through the complex black body math, just for me to show him his errors, and he never responded after that.

    Even if you don't agree with my 0.18%, and use something like 0.09%, then the solar radiative increase in the atmosphere is now 0.465 watt/square meter.

    The normal 11 year solar cycle changes are about 0.07% from high to low. Is it unreasonable to believe the sun changes by 0.18% over the long term?

    Oh...

    I also used the 11 year average to get the 0.18% increase. Before I did that, I had a 0.24% increase.

    Lean 2000, updated 2004
    Last edited by Wild Cobra; 12-15-2010 at 12:11 PM.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  2. #752
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Elements of scientific method

    Four essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings, or orderings of the following:

    1) Characterizations (observations, definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)
    2) Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)
    3) Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from the hypothesis or theory)
    4) Experiments (tests of all of the above)
    We are only at step 2 so the AGW thing is still only a hypothesis. Predictions still are failure as the commonplace.

    Looks like this does not comply with step 3:

    Climatologist Michael Hulme of the University of East Anglia, in England, told Ritter that the scientific evidence backing the basic idea of human activity changing the global climate system is now overwhelming, even if scientific predictions for future climate change are still shrouded in uncertainty.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  3. #753
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    If the consensus of 9 of 10 doctors who review a spot on your X-ray is that you need to get a biopsy, is that a valid reason for the test?

    I biopsy doesn't harm the patient and can be tested and verified immediately.


    Analogy fail
    DarrinS is offline

  4. #754
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    DarrinS is offline

  5. #755
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    I biopsy doesn't harm the patient and can be tested and verified immediately.


    Analogy fail
    http://www.imaginis.com/biopsy/risks-of-biopsy

    Risks of [Breast cancer]
    Biopsy

    Infection of the biopsy area
    Hematoma: (blood blister) pooling of blood trapped inside the biopsy area
    Hemorrhage: bleeding
    Vasovagal response: loss of consciousness due to sudden slowing of the heart beat, usually brought on by pain, stress, shock or fear)
    Rarely more significant complications can occur when structures near the biopsy target are entered with the needle (for example, puncture of lung or bowel)

    Surgical biopsy has some additional risks versus needle biopsy:

    Surgical biopsies require sutures (s ches) and can leave a disfiguring scar, depending on the size of the excision
    Surgical biopsy carries a small risk of mortality (due to risks of anesthesia)
    Surgical biopsy causes moderate chances of bleeding, infection, wound healing problems
    The localizing wire may fracture or migrate during wire localization breast biopsy
    Surgical biopsy usually requires one day of recuperation at home
    among others easily found witha google search.

    Biopsies always entail some risk and although generally this risk is minor, it is NOT fully "harmless", especially if you get an antibiotic-resistant infection.

    *Fact* fail.

    Analogy win.
    RandomGuy is offline

  6. #756
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,520
    War Of The Graphs, Part Quatre-Vingt-Deux


    Top 10 Climate-Change Denier Arguments Debunked






    http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/149101
    boutons_deux is offline

  7. #757
    Veteran jack sommerset's Avatar
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Post Count
    9,221
    jack sommerset is offline

  8. #758
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,520
    Rising temperatures in the Arctic -- increasing at two to three times the global average -- have peeled back the region's floating ice cover by 20 percent over the last three decades.

    This has allowed more of the Sun's radiative force to be absorbed by dark-blue sea rather than bounced back into space by reflective ice and snow, accelerating the warming process.

    More critically for weather patterns, it has also created a massive source of heat during the winter months.

    "Say the ocean is at zero degrees Celsius (32 degrees Fahrenheit)," said Stefan Rahmstorf, a climate scientist at the Potsdam Ins ute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

    "That is a lot warmer than the overlying air in the polar area in winter, so you get a major heat flow heating up the atmosphere from below which you don't have when it is covered by ice. That's a massive change," he told AFP in an interview.

    The result, according to a modeling study published earlier this month the Journal of Geophysical Research, is a strong high-pressure system over the newly-exposed sea which brings cold polar air, swirling counter-clockwise, into Europe.

    "Recent severe winters like last year's or the one of 2005-2006 do not conflict with the global warming picture, but rather supplement it," explained Vladimir Petoukhov, lead author of the study and a physicist at the Potsdam Ins ute.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/b...lobal-warming/






    "As I look out my window is see about 30 centimeters of snow and the thermostat reads -14.0 C," said Rahmstorf, speaking by phone from Potsdam.

    "At the same time, in Greenland we have above zero temperatures -- in December.
    boutons_deux is offline

  9. #759
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Boutons...

    Where do you keep coming up with this bull ?

    The loss is only about 10%. Not 20%!
    Wild Cobra is offline

  10. #760
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Ever ask yourself, if this is a "global" incident, "why is the southern hemisphere normal?"

    Wild Cobra is offline

  11. #761
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    Ever ask yourself, if this is a "global" incident, "why is the southern hemisphere normal?"
    [ginormous graph showing much smaller southern hemisphere ice anomoly omitted for readability-RG]
    Is it possible that the explanation lies in the fact that the behavior of the system is complex enough to be more pronounced in some areas than others?
    RandomGuy is offline

  12. #762
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Is it possible that the explanation lies in the fact that the behavior of the system is complex enough to be more pronounced in some areas than others?
    Well, there is a major difference between the norther ice shelves and southern ice shelves.

    It's called black carbon on ice and snow.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  13. #763
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    Well, there is a major difference between the norther ice shelves and southern ice shelves.

    It's called black carbon on ice and snow.
    The question remains:

    Is it possible that the explanation lies in the fact that the behavior of the system is complex enough to be more pronounced in some areas than others?

    The only evidence supporting this theory I have seen you present was a paper done showing soot in the Himalayas if memory serves.

    Do you have any evidence that the artic ice is similarly affected? (genuinely curious)
    RandomGuy is offline

  14. #764
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Post Count
    27
    Well, there is a major difference between the norther ice shelves and southern ice shelves.

    It's called black carbon on ice and snow.
    Actually, there is an even bigger difference. Most of the Arctic Ice Mass is floating in the Arctic Ocean while a good chunk of the Antarctic Ice Mass is blanketing the continent of Antarctica. I only mention this in passing because that graph you posted only covers Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area.

    To say that the 'Southern Hemisphere is normal' would not be accurate.
    McFudpucker is offline

  15. #765
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    The question remains:

    Is it possible that the explanation lies in the fact that the behavior of the system is complex enough to be more pronounced in some areas than others?

    The only evidence supporting this theory I have seen you present was a paper done showing soot in the Himalayas if memory serves.

    Do you have any evidence that the artic ice is similarly affected? (genuinely curious)
    I have posted several NASA links on the topic in the past.

    Check some articles in this search:

    Google Search
    Wild Cobra is offline

  16. #766
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Actually, there is an even bigger difference. Most of the Arctic Ice Mass is floating in the Arctic Ocean while a good chunk of the Antarctic Ice Mass is blanketing the continent of Antarctica. I only mention this in passing because that graph you posted only covers Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area.

    To say that the 'Southern Hemisphere is normal' would not be accurate.
    There are still ice shelves affected. Think what you wish, but there is so much more going on than just CO2.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  17. #767
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    I have posted several NASA links on the topic in the past.

    Check some articles in this search:

    Google Search
    NASA Study Finds Soot May Be Changing The Arctic Environment

    That is the only mention outside of the Himalayan study I meantioned.

    It has been your and Darrin's position that NASA data and models supporting global warming are suspect.

    Yet here you seem to be claiming them as accurate, when they support your position.

    Is this correct?
    RandomGuy is offline

  18. #768
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    Antarctic ice cover 'increasing due to hole in ozone layer'

    By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent 1:03PM BST 22 Apr 2009
    In stark contrast to the loss of sea ice in the Arctic over the last 30 years, the frozen seas surrounding the South Pole have increased at the rate of 100,000 square kilometres a decade over the last 40 years.

    Scientists believe the growth is down to stronger surface winds over Antarctica and more frequent storms in the Southern Ocean – both direct consequences of the ozone hole.

    But the team from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and Nasa warned the ozone hole was only delaying the impact of greenhouse gases on the climate of the White Continent.

    If ozone levels recover as expected over the next 100 years, thanks to the international ban on damaging CFCs, weather patterns will return to normal and Antarctic sea ice will shrink rapidly, they said.

    Professor John Turner of BAS, lead author of the paper published in the Geophysical Research Letters journal, said the results underlined the complexity of climate change.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...one-layer.html

    Interesting bit that had nothing to do with soot.
    RandomGuy is offline

  19. #769
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,479
    Coral expert J.E.N. Veron, former chief scientist of the Australian Ins ute of Marine Science, had this to say in an excellent interview he did with Yale Environment 360 last year: "the science is clear: Unless we change the way we live, the Earth's coral reefs will be utterly destroyed within our children's lifetimes.

    "You may well feel that dire predictions about anything almost always turn out to be exaggerations. You may think there may be something in it to worry about, but it won't be as bad as doomsayers like me are predicting. This view is understandable given that only a few decades ago I, myself, would have thought it ridiculous to imagine that reefs might have a limited lifespan on Earth as a consequence of human actions. It would have seemed preposterous that, for example, the Great Barrier Reef--the biggest structure ever made by life on Earth--could be mortally threatened by any present or foreseeable environmental change. Yet here I am today, humbled to have spent the most productive scientific years of my life around the rich wonders of the underwater world, and utterly convinced that they will not be there for our children's children to enjoy unless we drastically change our priorities and the way we live."

    Reefs are the ocean's canaries and we must hear their call. This call is not just for themselves, for the other great ecosystems of the ocean stand behind reefs like a row of dominoes. If coral reefs fail, the rest will follow in rapid succession, and the Sixth Mass Extinction will be upon us--and will be of our making.

    I might add that not only are reefs the ocean's canaries, they are incredibly valuable in their own right. According to the World Meteorological Organization, coral reefs provide economic services--jobs, food and tourism--estimated to be worth $30 billion per year. NOAA put this figure at twelve times higher, $375 billion each year. Corals cover just 0.2% of the world's oceans, but contain about 25% of all marine species.
    This type of information does not fit into a scenario where the world is cooling and where the oceans are the source of CO2 rising in the atmosphere.

    Also, this very much goes to show the interdisciplinary nature of climate science.

    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/Jef...?entrynum=1722
    MannyIsGod is offline

  20. #770
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    This type of information does not fit into a scenario where the world is cooling and where the oceans are the source of CO2 rising in the atmosphere.

    Also, this very much goes to show the interdisciplinary nature of climate science.

    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/Jef...?entrynum=1722


    Too bad we can't control an El Niño event.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ing-coral.html


    In 1998 an El Niño weather pattern sparked the worst coral-bleaching event ever observed.

    "Over 16 percent of the world's reefs … were lost in that one year," said Graham, part of a team that recently received an unrelated research grant from the National Geographic Society Committee for Research and Exploration. (National Geographic News is a part of the National Geographic Society.)

    "It was a huge event."
    DarrinS is offline

  21. #771
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,479
    You realize that we're in a La Nina event right now and seeing the worst bleaching on record? Also, the areas mentioned (such as the Indian Ocean) are not affected by El Nino?

    The ironic thing about bringing up El Nino is that we're in the exact opposite phase of the ENSO right now. If the Positive phase is what causes bleaching then you should definitely not see that in a year dominated by a strong La Nina.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  22. #772
    Corpus Christi Spurs Fan Phenomanul's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Post Count
    10,357
    Focus people... focus...

    In other news, the solar output last year (2010) increased 0.08% over the previous year (2009); a year which in turn saw an increase of 0.18% over 2008.

    That is, in two years the power output from our sun has increased by 0.26% and here we are fussing about how it's all our fault? Doesn't make any sense to take credit for the primary factor, the utmost cause in this picture.

    But... people and politicians will say anything to further their political agenda.

    And before I get lambasted for stating the obvious, few people here participate in as many conservation programs as I do... those that truly aim to save the planet. That still doesn't mean that the global warming message is 100% accurate and agenda-free.

    I don't buy bottled water.
    I don't use styrofoam products or throwaway plastic silverware.
    I use tablecloth napkins instead of paper ones.
    I collect rainwater and use it to irrigate my lawn.
    I protect several hectares of land in the Amazon rainforest.
    I use organic soaps and shampoos.
    I go on several trips a year to clean the beach.
    I plant more than 100 trees per year, and give our local farmers seminars on how to prevent topsoil errosion.
    I make biodiesel from several reclaiming processes.
    I installed a wind-powered generator.
    I've installed solar cells on my roof and changed out most of the lighting fixtures to LED array fixtures.
    etc... etc... etc...
    Phenomanul is offline

  23. #773
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,479
    I would love to see your information on solar output increasing last year and I'd like to see the trend dating back farther than 2 years.

    Also, AGW theory does not maintain that it is "all our fault" at all. Thats a complete Red Herring.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  24. #774
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,479
    Also, if you could tie in how solar output leads to the acidification of the ocean I'd like to know as well.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  25. #775
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    Face it, Manny, AGW will soon go the way of Vaccines causing Autism, Anthropogenic Global Cooling, Alar killing kids, Saccharin causing cancer, DDT doing more harm than good, and all of the rest of the alarmist causes that have served more to up society than solve anything.

    Hey, hear the latest?

    Electric Cars May Accelerate Global Warming

    You people really need to get your together before embarking on these hysterical initiatives that do nothing more than burden the economy and introduce products to the market that no one would want, otherwise.
    Yonivore is offline

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •