Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. [Archive] - Page 5

DarrinS

01-31-2011, 01:31 PM

Global warming meltdown in the UK

Are there “two sets of books” for UK meteorologists?

Because forecasts of a colder winter didn’t go very well with the government global warming story line, they were suppressed. Instead, the UK published information to the public which indicated there would be a warmer winter. When the actual weather was colder (December turned out to be the coldest in more than a century and the second coldest in 350 years), it caused untold problems because people and facilities, like Heathrow Airport, were unprepared. Not amused, those affected are taking action. For example, Luftansa and Virgin Atlantic are pressing Heathrow to compensate airlines hit by the chaos at the airport the week before Christmas.

A blog by one UK meteorologist, Paul Hudson, reveals that there may have been two sets of forecast maps – one available to internal meteorologists-showing a cold winter, and another made available to the public-showing a warm winter.
Roger Harrabin, of Canada Free Press, has written that the Met Office (UK’s National Weather Service) press office told him they’d given information to the UK government’s Cabinet Office that there would be an early cold winter. The BBC now has an Freedom of Information request to the Cabinet Office requesting verbatim info from the Met Office.

John O’Sullivan, also of Canada Free Press, provided more information on the meltdown:

“Last week the weather service caused a sensation by making the startling claim that it was gagged by government ministers from issuing a cold winter forecast. Instead, a milder than average prediction was made that has been resoundingly ridiculed in one of the worst winters in a century. In an almighty battle to salvage credibility, three British government institutions are embroiled in a new global warming scandal with the BBC mounting a legal challenge to force ministers to admit the truth. Sceptics ask: Is the UK government’s climate propaganda machine finally falling apart?

With the BBC appearing to take the side of the Met Office by seeking to force the government to give honest answers, untold harm will likely befall Prime Minister Cameron’s global warming policies on energy, taxation and the environment.”

Blake

02-01-2011, 12:16 PM

lol freezing in San Antonio

ergo, lol global warming

xrayzebra

02-02-2011, 01:37 PM

dip shits. Al Gore and it was predicted and
the rest of you idiots on Mother Earth is
warming.

This old man will tell you something you don't
want to hear. Things are they were when I was
young.

Weather, call it what you may, climate or weather,
to us who live it, it is the same.

We had an ice age, it warmed and the ice age
ended. We had a so called little ice age, it
warmed and it ended. Thank God it did.

Now in my lifetime, I have seen snow storms,
tornadoes, hurricanes, ice storms, cold weather
and hot as hell summers. Water shortages,
floods and what ever else you want to name.
And guess what. There wasn't a damn thing
any idiot government policy could change. Now
you want to argue stats. I will argue weather
in my lifetime. You don't want to. Then let's
build some more damn power plants using fuel
that is cheap and do away with BS. Okay!:bang

Wild Cobra

02-02-2011, 07:43 PM

More befuddled global-warming, scare-mongering conspiracy fantasies:

Arctic waters are warmest in 2,000 years

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2011/01/arctic-waters-warmest-2000-years/1?csp=34
More BS propaganda with incomplete and probably inaccurate data.

The data points are too far away to be meaningful. There clould be higher temperatures in the past that were missed.

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/AW-hockey-top.gif (http://climateprogress.org/2011/01/27/science-temperatures-atlantic-water-arctic-unprecedented-2000-years-linked-to-arctic-amplification-of-global-warming/)
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/AW-hockey-bottom.gif

Now what if one or more missing data point managed to meet es extrapolated:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/2100ice.jpg

It should not be dismissed that there was a general AW temperature increase from 400 to 1600 before the temperatures are shown to increase. Proxy data is only as accurate as what we can account for. That 1600 timeframe was when we had the "little ice age." Considering that the proxy data is taken from planktic foraminifers in a sediment core means that too many factors could have changed the characteristics that the data is derived from. The ice age would have killed life on a widespread basis. As the rivers flowed to where the plankton lived and died, their nutrients would have been dramatically altered. More from just temperatures.

RandomGuy

02-03-2011, 06:06 PM

More BS propaganda with incomplete and probably inaccurate data.

The data points are too far away to be meaningful. There clould be higher temperatures in the past that were missed.

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/AW-hockey-top.gif (http://climateprogress.org/2011/01/27/science-temperatures-atlantic-water-arctic-unprecedented-2000-years-linked-to-arctic-amplification-of-global-warming/)
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/AW-hockey-bottom.gif

Now what if one or more missing data point managed to meet es extrapolated:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/2100ice.jpg

It should not be dismissed that there was a general AW temperature increase from 400 to 1600 before the temperatures are shown to increase. Proxy data is only as accurate as what we can account for. That 1600 timeframe was when we had the "little ice age." Considering that the proxy data is taken from planktic foraminifers in a sediment core means that too many factors could have changed the characteristics that the data is derived from. The ice age would have killed life on a widespread basis. As the rivers flowed to where the plankton lived and died, their nutrients would have been dramatically altered. More from just temperatures.

So it is propaganda because there *might* be missing data?

Is it possible to draw reasonable conclusions from incomplete data?

Data from a number pattern:

1, 3, 5, 7... 455, 457, 459, 461... 993, 995, 997, 999

Sure the fifth number in the sequence might be 300, but would it all that unreasonable to make a good-faith effort to determine the governing rule based on the data you do have?

And if the arctic waters remain warm for the next 20 years, creating obvious sustained spikes in the data?

Do you have some scientific basis to think there is missing data?

Wild Cobra

02-03-2011, 11:19 PM

RandomGuy

02-05-2011, 06:53 PM

So it is propaganda because there *might* be missing data?

Is it possible to draw reasonable conclusions from incomplete data?

Data from a number pattern:

1, 3, 5, 7... 455, 457, 459, 461... 993, 995, 997, 999

Sure the fifth number in the sequence might be 300, but would it all that unreasonable to make a good-faith effort to determine the governing rule based on the data you do have?

And if the arctic waters remain warm for the next 20 years, creating obvious sustained spikes in the data?

Do you have some scientific basis to think there is missing data?

Wow...

I know you aren't that ignorant. Think about this again. Look at the AW temperature data points. They are about 100 years apart. A lot can happen in 20 years when it comes to climate. We normally have odd patterns of 20-30 years.

Do I have some basis...

Hell yes. Two serious points.

The first is that the data is too far apart.

The second is that this proxy data is based on plankton, which is a far more complex organism that using isotopes. The fact that this large fluctuation occurs after the maunder minima tells me that the massive death on earth washed away into the streams and affected the growth of plankton. Then there is the slow overall rise before this period that tells me that time likely disrupts the data differently than anticipated.

We simply do not have the level of scientific understanding to stand on such a study, as fact.

While your observation may be logical (lack of fossilization tendencies for plains' people - where unicorns also frolicked :lol). The fact that we've yet to find conclusive linkages to a common primate ancestor, after hundreds of years of searching for said link, after multiple fraudulent attempts to claim as much, one would begin to think that the people in your camp are hinging on blind faith.

Those links haven't been found. Their genomes haven't been mapped. Hence there is no proof said linkage[s] exist.

Why do your arguments start to invariably take on similar character to those of creationists who are "skeptical" of evolution?

"We just don't have enough data to state anything for a fact".

This is called "moving the goalposts", by the way.

RandomGuy

02-05-2011, 06:58 PM

Wow...

I know you aren't that ignorant. Think about this again. Look at the AW temperature data points. They are about 100 years apart. A lot can happen in 20 years when it comes to climate. We normally have odd patterns of 20-30 years.

Do I have some basis...

Hell yes. Two serious points.

The first is that the data is too far apart.

The second is that this proxy data is based on plankton, which is a far more complex organism that using isotopes. The fact that this large fluctuation occurs after the maunder minima tells me that the massive death on earth washed away into the streams and affected the growth of plankton. Then there is the slow overall rise before this period that tells me that time likely disrupts the data differently than anticipated.

We simply do not have the level of scientific understanding to stand on such a study, as fact.

Feel free to get out there and give us some better data. Until then, we will have to rely on the data we do have.

I get the feeling that no matter how granular the data points, you would make similar arguments, so I am not all too inclined to give your criticism all that much weight.

Tell me, what interval of data would you think would be sufficient to support the claim?

Wild Cobra

02-05-2011, 08:34 PM

Feel free to get out there and give us some better data. Until then, we will have to rely on the data we do have.

I get the feeling that no matter how granular the data points, you would make similar arguments, so I am not all too inclined to give your criticism all that much weight.

Tell me, what interval of data would you think would be sufficient to support the claim?
Why believe such BS articles.

Bad data = bad results. Just that simple. The article should be viewed as highly skeptical by anyone with a scientific mind.

RandomGuy

02-05-2011, 08:45 PM

Tell me, what interval of data would you think would be sufficient to support the claim?

Why believe such BS articles.

Bad data = bad results. Just that simple. The article should be viewed as highly skeptical by anyone with a scientific mind.

That is a non-answer.

Your skepticism is based on the belief that the intervals were too large, yet you fail to tell us what interval you would accept.

This is the kind of criticism constantly evidenced by 9-11 truthers, who simply find fault with any actual science done to test their theories, but never do any themselves.

I will ask again, what kind of interval would you find acceptable?

RandomGuy

02-05-2011, 08:56 PM

Since continuous data for the Fram Strait cover only the past 150 years, the researchers drilled ocean sediment cores dating back 2,000 years and analyzed their chemical composition to determine past water temperatures.

So the study has 150 years of direct data and 2,000 years of indirect data.

By studying the tiny-shelled organisms called foraminifera, which grow best under specific conditions, they could chart temperatures going back 2,000 years.

Their sampling site was 1,500 metres below the water surface and under the path of Atlantic water flowing to the Arctic Ocean.

They report the water has warmed about 2C since the late 1800s. The top few centimetres of sediment, representing the past 10 to 20 years, corresponds with a summer temperature of 6C, which matches what is seen in the northbound current.

The scientists say the data indicates the modern warming is not just the latest natural variation. The modern warming is “unequalled” by anything in the past 2,000 years, including the warm period seen in Roman and medieval times that affected climate in northern Europe and North America.
http://www.noagendashownotes.com/noagenda-backup/http_www_nunatsiaqonline_ca_stories_article_29_111 _water_entering_arctic_warmest_in_2__years.htm

What sort of tests would you think would be sufficient to allow us to draw reasonable conclusions about the temperature of water entering the arctic?

Do tell.

Wild Cobra

02-07-2011, 12:44 AM

That is a non-answer.

Your skepticism is based on the belief that the intervals were too large, yet you fail to tell us what interval you would accept.
No, that is one of two reasons. I clearly explained that the water chemistry would have changed after the maunder Minima, which would affect the aquatic life.

This is the kind of criticism constantly evidenced by 9-11 truthers, who simply find fault with any actual science done to test their theories, but never do any themselves.
Bullshit. I constantly bring sound reasoning to the table that nobody can dismiss. I can explain my reasons. The AGW crowd cannot explain their resons other than some peer reviewed paper said so.

I will ask again, what kind of interval would you find acceptable?
One that is at least as short as these periods that people claim to be significant, like 1980 to today. To see such small windows like 20-30 years, we need at least three data points within to be adequate. So I say 10 year intervals and I'll start listening, as ling as they are average result. Average would be expected of a sedimentary sample. These is still the unknown biological changes that the plankton go through with the changing and unknown water chemistry.

Simply put, too many unknowns to be a valid paper to consider.

Wild Cobra

02-07-2011, 12:46 AM

So the study has 150 years of direct data and 2,000 years of indirect data.

By studying the tiny-shelled organisms called foraminifera, which grow best under specific conditions, they could chart temperatures going back 2,000 years.

http://www.noagendashownotes.com/noagenda-backup/http_www_nunatsiaqonline_ca_stories_article_29_111 _water_entering_arctic_warmest_in_2__years.htm

What sort of tests would you think would be sufficient to allow us to draw reasonable conclusions about the temperature of water entering the arctic?

Do tell.

Since you didn't understand my point all along, your above words are gibberish. Too bad you don't start to comprehend your ignorance on the topic.

RandomGuy

02-07-2011, 10:45 AM

What sort of tests would you think would be sufficient to allow us to draw reasonable conclusions about the temperature of water entering the arctic?

Do tell.

... your above words are gibberish.

what (hwut, hwät, wut, wät)
pronoun
1.the nature, class, name, purpose, etc. of a thing

sort (sôrt)
noun
2.quality or type; nature:

of (uv)
g.from the whole, or total number, constituting

test (test)
noun
2.an examination, experiment, or trial, as to prove the value or ascertain the nature of something

would (wo̵od)
auxiliary verb
2.used to express a supposition or condition:

you (yo̵̅o̅)
pronoun pl. you
1.the person to whom one is speaking or writing

think (t̸hiŋk)
transitive verb
4.to determine, resolve, work out, etc. by reasoning

suf·fi·cient (-ənt)
adjective
1.as much as is needed; equal to what is specified or required; enough

to (to̵̅o̅)
b.in the direction of and reaching

al·low (ə lo̵u′)
transitive verb
4.to admit (a claim or the like); acknowledge as true or valid

us (ŭs)
pron. The objective form of we.

You can look up the rest of the words yourself at:
http://www.yourdictionary.com

The question remains then.

What sort of tests would you think would be sufficient to allow us to draw reasonable conclusions about the temperature of water entering the arctic in the past?

Do tell.

If you can't answer this question, just admit it. You admonish me for my ignorance, when I readily profess not being an expert.

Enlighten me as to what tests you would perform.

RandomGuy

02-07-2011, 10:57 AM

we just disagree on the source [of warming].

Source = soot (black carbon) as the largest man made AGW effect.

Please outline a test for this hypothesis.

LOL... Please outline their hypothesis...

How can I do what the best scientists cannot?

They cannot test the theory which supports the IPCC claim of 1.6 watts of warming for CO2 during the period the AR4 covers. Since the AR4, even the IPCC has agreed that both black carbon warming and solar are more than previous said. They have no reasonable way to measure or test CO2 warming. It is simply educated guess work by the results of the leftover numbers in math. They have modeled numbers to give to CO2 warming, but constantly revise them lower, and lower, and lower.

Why is it that you guys include feedback to CO2 warming, which is a feedback of solar radiation, then refuse to give other variables a feedback? Have you ever really thought about the different arguments?

You have come up with some very specific theses concerning various forcing levels and so forth.

You ask me to "take your word for it, because I am very knowledgeable".

Real scientists perform tests on their hypothesis. If you have a hypothesis, but it cannot be falsified, you cannot lay claim to that hypothesis being scientific.

Pseudoscience is any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that demarcate true science. Pseudoscience is designed to have the appearance of being scientific, but lacks any of the substance of science.

Your evasive answers simply reinforce my main premise.

"How can I do what the best scientists cannot", indeed.

DarrinS

02-07-2011, 11:05 AM

If you have a hypothesis, but it cannot be falsified, you cannot lay claim to that hypothesis being scientific.

Interesting. How can AGW theory be falsified? IMO, it would be some statistically significant period of time, where CO2 continued to increase, while temperatures remained steady or fell. What time period would be enough? We're currently working on year 13.

RandomGuy

02-07-2011, 11:12 AM

The second is that this proxy data is based on plankton, which is a far more complex organism that using isotopes. The fact that this large fluctuation occurs after the maunder minima tells me that the massive death on earth washed away into the streams and affected the growth of plankton. Then there is the slow overall rise before this period that tells me that time likely disrupts the data differently than anticipated.

No, that is one of two reasons. I clearly explained that the water chemistry would have changed after the maunder Minima, which would affect the aquatic life.

Bullshit. I constantly bring sound reasoning to the table that nobody can dismiss. I can explain my reasons. The AGW crowd cannot explain their resons other than some peer reviewed paper said so.

One that is at least as short as these periods that people claim to be significant, like 1980 to today. To see such small windows like 20-30 years, we need at least three data points within to be adequate. So I say 10 year intervals and I'll start listening, as ling as they are average result. Average would be expected of a sedimentary sample. These is still the unknown biological changes that the plankton go through with the changing and unknown water chemistry.

Simply put, too many unknowns to be a valid paper to consider.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foraminifera

The specific micro-organism is widely studied as requiring very specific conditions to form, from what I read.

Calcareous fossil foraminifera are formed from elements found in the ancient seas they lived in. Thus they are very useful in paleoclimatology and paleoceanography. They can be used to reconstruct past climate by examining the stable isotope ratios of oxygen, and the history of the carbon cycle and oceanic productivity by examining the stable isotope ratios of carbon;[20] see δ18O and δ13C. Geographic patterns seen in the fossil records of planktonic forams are also used to reconstruct ancient ocean currents. Because certain types of foraminifera are found only in certain environments, they can be used to figure out the kind of environment under which ancient marine sediments were deposited.

Seems as if you are claiming a great deal of expertise in these microorganisms to be able to call "bullshit" on this particular study.

Maybe you would favor us with the specific isotope ratios that you think are mistaken?

RandomGuy

02-07-2011, 11:20 AM

Interesting. How can AGW theory be falsified? IMO, it would be some statistically significant period of time, where CO2 continued to increase, while temperatures remained steady or fell. What time period would be enough? We're currently working on year 13.

Strawman nicely defeated. Congratulations.

13 years of steady or falling temperatures? Link? Data?

Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to an analysis released Wednesday by researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

In 2010, global temperatures continued to rise. A new analysis from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies shows that 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record, and was part of the warmest decade on record.

The two years differed by less than 0.018 degrees Fahrenheit. The difference is smaller than the uncertainty in comparing the temperatures of recent years, putting them into a statistical tie. In the new analysis, the next warmest years are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009, which are statistically tied for third warmest year. The GISS records begin in 1880.

The analysis found 2010 approximately 1.34°F warmer than the average global surface temperature from 1951 to 1980. To measure climate change, scientists look at long-term trends. The temperature trend, including data from 2010, shows the climate has warmed by approximately 0.36°F per decade since the late 1970s.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/

DarrinS

02-07-2011, 11:34 AM

Strawman nicely defeated. Congratulations.

13 years of steady or falling temperatures? Link? Data?

It's weird how you guys always prefer James Hanson's GISS data set to the Hadley centers HadCRUT dataset.

http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/grafiken/klima/giss_hadcrut.jpg

Wild Cobra

02-07-2011, 11:55 AM

The question remains then.

If you can't answer this question, just admit it. You admonish me for my ignorance, when I readily profess not being an expert.

Enlighten me as to what tests you would perform.
Don't you get it?

We have no such test that is reliable.

Like I said. You are too stupid to realize how ignorant you are on this topic.

Wild Cobra

02-07-2011, 12:01 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foraminifera

The specific micro-organism is widely studied as requiring very specific conditions to form, from what I read.

Seems as if you are claiming a great deal of expertise in these microorganisms to be able to call "bullshit" on this particular study.

Maybe you would favor us with the specific isotope ratios that you think are mistaken?
You just don't get it. Without knowing all variables outside the one we wish to understand from a proxy, the intended unknown cannot be properly determined. Other conditions were unknown for these proxy's in the past. they are far more complex that using deuterium, 14C, etc. as a proxy as multiple factors change how they develope. They are just complex enough that without knowing all other factors, they are absolutely unreliable as a proxy. You completely fail to comprehend the change in living conditions they would have gone through during and after the maunder minima.

I won't pretend to be smart enough to claim the results. Those who do are simply pulling the wool over you sheeple's eyes.

RandomGuy

02-07-2011, 12:09 PM

It's weird how you guys always prefer James Hanson's GISS data set to the Hadley centers HadCRUT dataset.

http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/grafiken/klima/giss_hadcrut.jpg

It's weird how you guys always show rather short tailed graphs when it comes to proving your point.

1) If your point is that the last 13 years is "flat or cooler" than what came before it, and you don't show what did come before it, then how can I independently verify your claim?

2) That is the "temperature" anomoly" graph, not the raw temperature graphs.

3) I used the first data that I came across. Feel free to post a moving average of temepratures for the last 70 years or so, up to 2009 or 2010. Despite what you might think, I'm not married to a particular dataset.

MannyIsGod

02-07-2011, 12:13 PM

MannyIsGod

02-07-2011, 12:16 PM

It's weird how you guys always show rather short tailed graphs when it comes to proving your point.

1) If your point is that the last 13 years is "flat or cooler" than what came before it, and you don't show what did come before it, then how can I independently verify your claim?

2) That is the "temperature" anomoly" graph, not the raw temperature graphs.

3) I used the first data that I came across. Feel free to post a moving average of temepratures for the last 70 years or so, up to 2009 or 2010. Despite what you might think, I'm not married to a particular dataset.

Using an anomaly graph is fine. I actually don't have a problem with the graph Darrin posted and I feel its an accurate representation. He at least avoided a graph starting in 1998 which obviously skews things in a bad manner.

Darrin has a right to point out the difference in the two data sets but its not really that big. When you look at the trend lines for both of those sets - they're pretty much identical.

RandomGuy

02-07-2011, 12:19 PM

Don't you get it?

We have no such test that is reliable [enough to determine the temperature of water entering the arctic].

Without knowing all variables outside the one we wish to understand from a proxy, the intended unknown cannot be properly determined. Other conditions were unknown for these proxy's in the past. they are far more complex that using deuterium, 14C, etc. as a proxy as multiple factors change how they develope. They are just complex enough that without knowing all other factors, they are absolutely unreliable as a proxy. You completely fail to comprehend the change in living conditions they would have gone through during and after the maunder minima.

I won't pretend to be smart enough to claim the results. Those who do are simply pulling the wool over you sheeple's eyes.

Like I said. You are too stupid to realize how ignorant you are on this topic.

Yes, yes, I just need to "do my research". That, along with the "sheeple" schtick is something that the 9-11 truthers tell me all the time.

So, in essence, you know of no reliable way that we might be able to reasonably determine temperature or conditions in the past in regards to this.

How convenient for your theories. :toast

Wild Cobra

02-07-2011, 12:22 PM

Yes, yes, I just need to "do my research". That, along with the "sheeple" schtick is something that the 9-11 truthers tell me all the time.

So, in essence, you know of no reliable way that we might be able to reasonably determine temperature or conditions in the past in regards to this.

How convenient for your theories. :toast
I am not the one making the outlandish claim. I am simply saying their claim is invalid.

Stop changing the goalpost. Show me some proof of their claim that is reliable if you must insist on believing it.

RandomGuy

02-07-2011, 12:23 PM

Using an anomaly graph is fine. I actually don't have a problem with the graph Darrin posted and I feel its an accurate representation. He at least avoided a graph starting in 1998 which obviously skews things in a bad manner.

Darrin has a right to point out the difference in the two data sets but its not really that big. When you look at the trend lines for both of those sets - they're pretty much identical.

and it is the trend line, the change over time, that is important in proving that we are affecting the climate through CO2 emissions.

Wild Cobra

02-07-2011, 12:31 PM

and it is the trend line, the change over time, that is important in proving that we are affecting the climate through CO2 emissions.
Except...

How many temperature stations changed, where are they, are they an accurate representation, etc.

RandomGuy

02-07-2011, 12:32 PM

I am not the one making the outlandish claim. I am simply saying their claim is invalid.

Stop changing the goalpost. Show me some proof of their claim that is reliable if you must insist on believing it.

Again, another trait in common with the truthers. They never make claims or put forth theories or tests to their theories. They simply wave their hands at points or studies that contradict their own theories.

You say their claim is invalid, because they show a warming trend on waters entering the actic, something that to you, is virtually impossible.

It appears to be based on a specific, well-studied organism, and the various carbon ratios involved in those organisms.

Because certain types of foraminifera are found only in certain environments, they can be used to figure out the kind of environment under which ancient marine sediments were deposited.

Are you saying you know more about the types of foraminifera than the scientists who study these organisms?

They seem to be fairly sure about the environmental ranges that they have catalogued so far for the various species of this organism.

Has your study of these creatures produced different environmental ranges for various species of foraminifera?

Enlighten the forum and tell us all about it.

DarrinS

02-07-2011, 12:39 PM

It's weird how you guys always show rather short tailed graphs when it comes to proving your point.

1) If your point is that the last 13 years is "flat or cooler" than what came before it, and you don't show what did come before it, then how can I independently verify your claim?

2) That is the "temperature" anomoly" graph, not the raw temperature graphs.

3) I used the first data that I came across. Feel free to post a moving average of temepratures for the last 70 years or so, up to 2009 or 2010. Despite what you might think, I'm not married to a particular dataset.

GISS extrapolates over the poles, while Hadley prefers to work with actual station data. GISS is not in agreement with satellite data.

The trendline with both of those sets is nearly identical.

Are you serious?

MannyIsGod

02-07-2011, 12:41 PM

The trendlines show nearly identical rates of change, Darrin. If you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you. Over a decade or so thats pretty god damn good.

DarrinS

02-07-2011, 12:43 PM

The trendlines show nearly identical rates of change, Darrin. If you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you. Over a decade or so thats pretty god damn good.

They are clearly diverging and GISS has been diverging from UAH (satellite record), especially since 2003.

Wild Cobra

02-07-2011, 12:43 PM

Enlighten the forum and tell us all about it.
They are using calcium formations. Acidity and other chemistry changes the equilibrium besides just temperature. Without knowing the composition of the other factors, it is impossible to properly extrapolate how the temperature affected the calcium carbonate (CaCO3).

The maunder minima and the aftermath definitely had an effect on more than just temperature.

RandomGuy

02-07-2011, 01:59 PM

They are using calcium formations. Acidity and other chemistry changes the equilibrium besides just temperature. Without knowing the composition of the other factors, it is impossible to properly extrapolate how the temperature affected the calcium carbonate (CaCO3).

The maunder minima and the aftermath definitely had an effect on more than just temperature.

In attempting to negate this one study you are, essentially, saying that the biologists and geologists who have been studying this haven't considered those factors, ever.

Because of their diversity, abundance, and complex morphology, fossil foraminiferal assemblages are useful for biostratigraphy, and can accurately give relative dates to rocks. The oil industry relies heavily on microfossils such as forams to find potential oil deposits.[19]

Calcareous fossil foraminifera are formed from elements found in the ancient seas they lived in. Thus they are very useful in paleoclimatology and paleoceanography. They can be used to reconstruct past climate by examining the stable isotope ratios of oxygen, and the history of the carbon cycle and oceanic productivity by examining the stable isotope ratios of carbon;[20] see δ18O and δ13C. Geographic patterns seen in the fossil records of planktonic forams are also used to reconstruct ancient ocean currents. Because certain types of foraminifera are found only in certain environments, they can be used to figure out the kind of environment under which ancient marine sediments were deposited.

For the same reasons they make useful biostratigraphic markers, living foraminiferal assemblages have been used as bioindicators in coastal environments, including indicators of coral reef health. Because calcium carbonate is susceptible to dissolution in acidic conditions, foraminifera may be particularly affected by changing climate and ocean acidification.

It would seem that they have been studying these various factors.

The fun thing is that you now have taken on something in common with "moon hoax" jackasses. Often they rail against the fact that we never really landed on the moon, but seem ignorant of the fact that we landed not once, but several times.

This isn't the only study of these creatures out there that is used to draw conclusions about the environment.

Do you think that these people have gotten ALL of these studies wrong over the years and have NEVER considered the other factors you allude to?

You state they are "using calcium formations". The wikipedia entry to me says that silicon and oxygen isotopes are measured as well.

What in the study in question have you read that leads you to believe they were relying on calcium?

If you haven't read the specific study, then how do you know they were using "calcium formations"?

RandomGuy

02-07-2011, 02:07 PM

I am not the one making the outlandish claim. I am simply saying their claim is invalid.

Stop changing the goalpost. Show me some proof of their claim that is reliable if you must insist on believing it.

I have not moved the goalposts at all. I have merely asked you how you would go about testing your hypothesis.

Please show exactly where I "moved the goalposts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts)".

The scientists supporting the AGW theory have hypothesis and have made good-faith efforts at supporting that with data, as one would expect real scientists to do.

If asking you for one of the most basic evidentiary elements in science is "moving the goalposts", that would seem to imply that asking anybody how they would test their hypothesis is moving the goalposts.

This is not advanced physics. Forming a hypothesis, and devising tests of that hypothesis are skills taught to elementary school kids.

Surely you can do better than a 5th grader.

Lastly, you have accused me of a rather direct logical fallacy. I am unaware that I have done any such thing.

Please show me how I have "changed the goal posts", or withdraw the assertion.

RandomGuy

02-07-2011, 02:09 PM

By the way, if you can give me a link to this study, I would appreciate it.

You appear to have read it, based on your criticism. I have not.

Wild Cobra

02-07-2011, 02:11 PM

Lets assume they are relying on the isotopes which are accurate for temperature. Only in fixed settings though.

Again, we now go to chemistry changes in the straits from the decline in glacier melting during the maunder minima, to the melting once it started warming again. This absence of, then excess of glacier waters change that isotopic mix in a manner that makes it impossible to determine the actual temperature.

This isotopic data is only accurate when you can determine other factors don't influence it.

Do you understand what both 18O and 13C represent?

RandomGuy

02-07-2011, 02:22 PM

By the by:

Anyone reading up on this little bug may have noticed the wikipeida entry where it talks about "tests".

The form and composition of the test is the primary means by which forams are identified and classified. Most have calcareous tests, composed of calcium carbonate.[10] In other forams the test may be composed of organic material, made from small pieces of sediment cemented together (agglutinated), and in one genus of silica. Openings in the test, including those that allow cytoplasm to flow between chambers, are called apertures

test 2 (tst)
n.
A hard external covering, as that of certain amoebas, dinoflagellates, and sea urchins.

Test here has a very specific meaning that is not used in the more common "examination" sense.

RandomGuy

02-07-2011, 02:32 PM

MannyIsGod

02-07-2011, 02:53 PM

They are clearly diverging and GISS has been diverging from UAH (satellite record), especially since 2003.

I agree its warmer but I don't necessarily think its wrong. I think the fact that all temp records are rising at pretty much the same rates is telling but I think its very important to use ALL temp records and not focus on any single set.

RandomGuy

02-07-2011, 02:58 PM

RandomGuy

02-07-2011, 03:05 PM

I agree its warmer but I don't necessarily think its wrong. I think the fact that all temp records are rising at pretty much the same rates is telling but I think its very important to use ALL temp records and not focus on any single set.

Focusing on one single thing is how conspiracy theorists and pseudoscientists work.

They tend to ingore the wider weight of evidence.

When you start pulling together data set after data set that start reinforcing each other, while any one thing might be "weakly predictive", taken as a whole it starts to paint a fairly consistant picture.

Wild Cobra

02-08-2011, 01:29 AM

RandomGuy

02-09-2011, 10:27 AM

Random..,.

The changing rate of the glacier melt on both sides of the maunder minima changes the 18O and 13C contents to an make the readings unreliable. You end up with more and less dilution of the waters with isotopic ratios of the past. It changes the reliability of the testing.

Don't you get it. All the possible proxies they are using are bad data, because of how the water chemical and isotopic balance was changed. It wasn't changed only by the temperature range they wished to capture, but by the past temperature rages trapped in ice, and of the chemical changes on the land. That area is too close to both melting glacier ice and river run off.

How do you know that the study relied on those isotopes for its methodology?

Have you actually read it?

I noticed you tap danced around that question, with your usual hand-wavy dismissal of anything that challenges your already-held views.

I asked for a specific link to the study itself. I was unable to find it.

Please provide a link to the study, so that I don't have to take your word for it. I can think of at least one method for estimating environment that doesn't require the measurement of isotopes that can be performed on recent sedimentation.

Bullshit has been called. Put up or shut up. I have some doubts you even read the study to be able to comment on its methodology.

RandomGuy

02-09-2011, 10:33 AM

This isn't the only study of these creatures out there that is used to draw conclusions about the environment.

Do you think that these people have gotten ALL of these studies wrong over the years and have NEVER considered the other factors you allude to?

Lets assume they are relying on the isotopes which are accurate for temperature. Only in fixed settings though.

Again, we now go to chemistry changes in the straits from the decline in glacier melting during the maunder minima, to the melting once it started warming again. This absence of, then excess of glacier waters change that isotopic mix in a manner that makes it impossible to determine the actual temperature.

This isotopic data is only accurate when you can determine other factors don't influence it.

Do you understand what both 18O and 13C represent?

You did not answer my question. In claiming that this study lacks sufficient consideration of other factors, you are directly implying that all the other studies done by biologists and geologists are similarly flawed.

Are they? Yes or no?

Or is it just this one study? If so, then how SPECIFICALLY did they get it wrong, and please reference the orginal source study methodology. Their claims appear to be based on the appearance of one or more specific species of this thing. What are the preferred environmental ranges (temperature and/or PH) of the species in

Random..,.

The changing rate of the glacier melt on both sides of the maunder minima changes the 18O and 13C contents to an make the readings unreliable. You end up with more and less dilution of the waters with isotopic ratios of the past. It changes the reliability of the testing.

Don't you get it. All the possible proxies they are using are bad data, because of how the water chemical and isotopic balance was changed. It wasn't changed only by the temperature range they wished to capture, but by the past temperature rages trapped in ice, and of the chemical changes on the land. That area is too close to both melting glacier ice and river run off.

How many times do I need to ask this question?

There are far more than this one study done on these organisms in the field of biology that have been done over decades. These aren't "climate scientists". This is basic biology and geology.

Are all those other studies similarly flawed?

RandomGuy

02-09-2011, 10:36 AM

And lest you forget, I am still waiting on how you would test your "soot" hypothesis.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4956955&postcount=1018

Forming an hypothesis, then thinking of ways to test that hypothesis are skills that are taught to elementary school students.

Surely you can demonstrate, with your vast wealth of scientific knowledge, a way to test your hypothesis.

Still waiting on this one too.

Either you can formulate a test for your hypothesis, or you can't. I will assume that if you ignore this again, you can't. If you can't, then you get to join the Truthers in the corner.

Wild Cobra

02-09-2011, 04:01 PM

How do you know that the study relied on those isotopes for its methodology?

Have you actually read it?
I am stating why your arguments are invalid. I didn't bring up the isotopes, but am referring to why in this case they cannot be used. Same wit the Plankton.

I noticed you tap danced around that question, with your usual hand-wavy dismissal of anything that challenges your already-held views.
Bullshit.

You are doing the tap-dancing. When i say why something doesn't work as a reliable proxy, you change the argument.

I asked for a specific link to the study itself. I was unable to find it.
I don't care what the study says. When itused sedementation and relies on the things I have seen, it doesn't work.It's bullshit. maybe that's why you cannot find the study.

Please provide a link to the study, so that I don't have to take your word for it. I can think of at least one method for estimating environment that doesn't require the measurement of isotopes that can be performed on recent sedimentation.
Fine, show me. My entire point is that there is no reliable way to measure the sedament in that area because of the ecological changes that we cannot account for. If your article can somehow magically account for them, then I'm game.

Bullshit has been called. Put up or shut up. I have some doubts you even read the study to be able to comment on its methodology.
I was the first to call bullshit. You're not able to back up the articles claim. It's not for me to have to disprove it any more than I have. How about proving the article.

Wild Cobra

02-09-2011, 04:04 PM

Still waiting on this one too.

Either you can formulate a test for your hypothesis, or you can't. I will assume that if you ignore this again, you can't. If you can't, then you get to join the Truthers in the corner.
I have in the past, linked several reliable articles on the issue, including material from the IPCC acknowledging soot has more radiative forcing than previously stated. I am not going to repeat my endeavors to find the material for you. You play this "prove it to me" game, well...

It's there, in past threads.

RandomGuy

02-09-2011, 04:25 PM

I don't care what the study says. When it used sedementation and relies on the things I have seen, it doesn't work. It's bullshit.

...

It's not for me to have to disprove it any more than I have. How about proving the article.

Have you, or have you not actually read the cited study?

If you refuse to answer the question, I must assume the answer is no. You have no idea what the exact methodology used in the study is.

That means the only logical conclusion is that your dismissal of the study is baseless.

RandomGuy

02-09-2011, 04:27 PM

I have in the past, linked several reliable articles on the issue, including material from the IPCC acknowledging soot has more radiative forcing than previously stated. I am not going to repeat my endeavors to find the material for you. You play this "prove it to me" game, well...

It's there, in past threads.

Ok, I think it is safe to assume then by your lack of answer for the 3rd or 4th time, you are unable to come up with a test for your overall hypothesis.

You should not have to look up past threads to tell me how you would go about testing your own hypothesis.

Wild Cobra

02-09-2011, 04:36 PM

Ok, I think it is safe to assume then by your lack of answer for the 3rd or 4th time, you are unable to come up with a test for your overall hypothesis.

You should not have to look up past threads to tell me how you would go about testing your own hypothesis.
No, I am just flat out tired of you asking for the same things I have answered before, while showing no evidence to show your case.

In the case of the temperature study, I pointed out real reasons why the study is flawed. You cannot show why I am wrong, so you change the argument.

Bad form. Can we stick with that for now?

RandomGuy

02-09-2011, 04:38 PM

I was the first to call bullshit. You're not able to back up the articles claim. It's not for me to have to disprove it any more than I have. How about proving the article.

You claimed:

Considering that the proxy data is taken from planktic foraminifers in a sediment core means that too many factors could have changed the characteristics that the data is derived from. The ice age would have killed life on a widespread basis. As the rivers flowed to where the plankton lived and died, their nutrients would have been dramatically altered. More from just temperatures.

Your claim that the study did not consider other complicating factors is the one I am asking you to back up.

It is not my burden to "prove the article". Is is your burden to show me that the factors were not considered.

The only way to do that is to show the study methodology.

You are, I believe, attempting to shift the burden of proof, because you know you have not read the study that you are criticizing.

Yet another trait in common with 9-11 truthers. :tu

RandomGuy

02-09-2011, 04:46 PM

In the case of the temperature study, I pointed out real reasons why the study is flawed. You cannot show why I am wrong, so you change the argument.

No, you didn't actually. You stated some vague generalities about rivers.

If that is what counts as "refuting" an argument, then you are simply doing the same glib generalities that ol' Cosmored does when he thinks he has come up with some foil to "prove NASA was lying about landing on the moon".

"What about the USSR?"

"They could have been bribed".

"DO you have any proof of this bribery, like an actual document or confession?"

"Look at this video of the jacket" :rolleyes

-----------------------------------------------

R: "What about this study?"

W: "It didn't consider all these other factors that I think makes it false"

R: "Can you show me the methodology of this study, so I can see for myself?"

W: "Quit changing the subject, and prove the study"

R: "Have you actually read this study?"

W. "It isn't my job to tell you where the study is."

R. "Have you actually read this study?"

W. "Quit shifting the burden of proof."

:rolleyes

Wild Cobra

02-09-2011, 04:54 PM

No, you didn't actually. You stated some vague generalities about rivers.

Oh...

So you want me to take the time to give you geography lesson as well?

That study was about a specific location. If you aren't even going to look up the region, to understand what my remarks mean, then you are really lost on ignorance. Not my fault.

However, I'll throw a bone on the "soot" issue:

Black Carbon Global Warming (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109885)

RandomGuy

02-09-2011, 05:00 PM

Oh...

So you want me to take the time to give you geography lesson as well?

That study was about a specific location. If you aren't even going to look up the region, to understand what my remarks mean, then you are really lost on ignorance. Not my fault.

Have you, or have you not actually read the cited study?

Wild Cobra

02-09-2011, 05:02 PM

Have you, or have you not actually read the cited study?
The actual study, NO. This is all I need, to know it's unreliable:

Since continuous meteorological and oceanographic data for the Fram Strait reach back only 150 years, the team drilled ocean sediment cores dating back 2,000 years to determine past water temperatures. The researchers used microscopic, shelled protozoan organisms called foraminifera -- which prefer specific water temperatures at depths of roughly 150 to 650 feet -- as tiny thermometers.

In addition, the team used a second, independent method that involved analyzing the chemical composition of the foraminifera shells to reconstruct past water temperatures in the Fram Strait, said Marchitto.

Have you access to the study? Please do link.

RandomGuy

02-09-2011, 05:14 PM

Have you, or have you not actually read the cited study?

The actual study, NO. This is all I need, to know it's unreliable:

Have you access to the study? Please do link.

You haven't actually read the study, yet you just know, using your knowlege of biology, it's wrong.

A quick google search of "foraminiferal studies" yields "About 208,000 results".

People with PhD's in biology and geology have been studying these creatures for the better part of 5 decades in pretty excrutiating detail.

Yet you claim this study, without having read it, is so totally useless that no meaningful conclusion can be drawn from it.

I would think the biologists and geologists who have put together a pretty extensive body of knowledge here would disagree.

Unless, of course you think the biologists and geologists are in on the conspiracy with the "climate scientists"?

Are you trying to tell me you have the credentials in biology/geology to adequately peer review a study you have never read?

RandomGuy

02-09-2011, 05:15 PM

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=1457

Wild Cobra

02-09-2011, 05:25 PM

Have you, or have you not actually read the cited study?

You haven't actually read the study, yet you just know, using your knowlege of biology, it's wrong.
I am using my knowledge of what affects proxy data, and the maunder minima cannot be left out, nor can they ever correctly account for it's effects.

A quick google search of "foraminiferal studies" yields "About 208,000 results".
So?

Do all 208,000+ agree?

People with PhD's in biology and geology have been studying these creatures for the better part of 5 decades in pretty excrutiating detail.
Do you like making up arguments that don't apply?

Yet you claim this study, without having read it, is so totally useless that no meaningful conclusion can be drawn from it.
If you understood proxy data, sampling times, etc., we wouldn't be having this argument. I find you moronically ignorant for insisting to believe in this study.

Think about this for a moment. i am not disputing the sciences used, just that these sciences are unreliable for what they are showing in this case. There were too many other factors to apply a science used in more stable waters to the Fram Straits. On top of that, the time slices are spaced too far apart.

I would think the biologists and geologists who have put together a pretty extensive body of knowledge here would disagree.
I think one who read my concerns over the studies would agree with me.

Unless, of course you think the biologists and geologists are in on the conspiracy with the "climate scientists"?
Never said that. Maybe those doing this particular study though...

Are you trying to tell me you have the credentials in biology/geology to adequately peer review a study you have never read?
I am telling you the the mistakes are so blatant that I understand them.

RandomGuy

02-09-2011, 05:30 PM

Are you trying to tell me you have the credentials in biology/geology to adequately peer review a study you have never read?

I am telling you the the mistakes are so blatant that I understand them.

... in the study you haven't actually read.

:lmao

If the problems were so aparent that YOU can find them, do you think that someone with a PhD in biology might be able to find them during the peer review process?

Wild Cobra

02-09-2011, 05:35 PM

Random, let me try to explain one factor that invalidates the study near glacier rivers. From wiki: Foraminifera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foraminifera)

Calcareous fossil foraminifera are formed from elements found in the ancient seas they lived in. Thus they are very useful in paleoclimatology and paleoceanography. They can be used to reconstruct past climate by examining the stable isotope ratios of oxygen, and the history of the carbon cycle and oceanic productivity by examining the stable isotope ratios of carbon;[20] see δ18O and δ13C. Geographic patterns seen in the fossil records of planktonic forams are also used to reconstruct ancient ocean currents. Because certain types of foraminifera are found only in certain environments, they can be used to figure out the kind of environment under which ancient marine sediments were deposited.

18O and 13C are also trapped in glacier ice. 18O is a temperature proxy and 13C is a more direct proxy to the biology of the plankton. The melting is historically changing. Never consistent, and never reliable. we have no way to determine how much glacier or floating ice, and at what age, contaminated the regions waters. Direct studies have only occurred a little more than a century.This is a huge factor. There simply is no way to account for these changes other than SWAGing it. (SWAG = scientific wild ass guess.)

Then of course, the core samples are about 100 years apart, which was my first complaint. Nominal shorter trends would not be seen.

Oh...

The AGW crowd lives to SWAG it.

Wild Cobra

02-09-2011, 05:40 PM

Are you trying to tell me you have the credentials in biology/geology to adequately peer review a study you have never read?

... in the study you haven't actually read.

:lmao
No, I read enough of it to know it's invalid because of the region the study was in, and time between data points.

Here it is:

Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/450.full)

Have at it.

If the problems were so aparent that YOU can find them, do you think that someone with a PhD in biology might be able to find them during the peer review process?
They should have. However, was it an open peer review process, or closed to like minded individuals?

Was it even a peer review process? It was a paper, it i didn't see it. Did you?

Wild Cobra

02-09-2011, 05:46 PM

You might find this useful, that is if you understand it:

Supporting Online Material for Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2011/01/26/331.6016.450.DC1/Spielhagen.SOM.pdf)

Wild Cobra

02-09-2011, 06:00 PM

Wild Cobra

02-09-2011, 06:04 PM

Random...

I shouldn't have to explain to a 3rd grade level what I am saying. If you do not understand my words or intent from the start, maybe you shout leave your ignorant mouth shut.

Stop making a fool of yourself.

Wild Cobra

02-09-2011, 06:16 PM

To top it off, C13 samples by nominal methods use a 1 sigma statistical measurement. I learned long ago, for reliability, you want 3 sigma or better.

Wild Cobra

02-09-2011, 07:08 PM

Willie Soon... sounds like a knock knock joke.

Knock knock..

who's there?

Willie Soon

Willie Soon who?

Willie Soon be writing scientific papers?

FWIW, the scientific critique of Darrin's given article. (http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2003/prrl0319.html)

Seems the evidence Soon used was less suited to temperature, and more suited to determining moisture/drought.

Astonishing what the peer review process actually does. :wow
How can the critique be 2 years older than the article?

Critiquing the right article, or not...

See, that's part of your problem. You latch on to an idea. Some time back, when I pointed out you kept interchanging smog and ozone, you kept running in circles with demanding other proofs, like you are now. It seems when you are confronted with showing you are wrong, you cannot accept it, and do all you can to change the argument.

Wild Cobra

02-09-2011, 07:14 PM

RandomGuy

02-09-2011, 10:23 PM

How can the critique be 2 years older than the article?

Critiquing the right article, or not...

See, that's part of your problem. You latch on to an idea. Some time back, when I pointed out you kept interchanging smog and ozone, you kept running in circles with demanding other proofs, like you are now. It seems when you are confronted with showing you are wrong, you cannot accept it, and do all you can to change the argument.

It was an incorrect critique of the article. I will admit to occasionally making mistakes, and this was one of them.

I freely admit when I am wrong, and do no such thing to change the argument.

RandomGuy

02-09-2011, 10:30 PM

RandomGuy

02-09-2011, 10:47 PM

As for the study itself. How did they account for the changing circulation? Please don't ask any of us to think the maunder minima didn't change any of that, since it is the only actual deep "strait" to the arctic ocean.

To assume this also didn't change the water chemistry would be in error. It would also be a part of any actual temperature changes.

So, how do you account for the physical inspection of the observed species?

These species live within narrow temperature ranges.

You may quibble over isotopes, but they sampled layers within the samples and stuck them under microscopes.

Wild Cobra

02-10-2011, 11:15 AM

So, how do you account for the physical inspection of the observed species?
You still mis the point of my argument.

These species live within narrow temperature ranges.
So, temperature is not the only thing that affects them.

You may quibble over isotopes, but they sampled layers within the samples and stuck them under microscopes.
I'm not quibbling over the measurements, but the unknown factors that lead to the measured results. There is no way to account for the unknowns.

Get a clue. Have you ignored everything I said, or are you really that daft?

RandomGuy

02-10-2011, 06:48 PM

You still mis the point of my argument.

So, temperature is not the only thing that affects them.

Get a clue. Have you ignored everything I said, or are you really that daft?

I am pretty sure I do understand you, that is the problem. I understand enough to suspect you are pissing on my shoes and trying to tell me its raining.

If a species requires two conditions to thrive, one temperature, and the other PH, then if you see that organism in the fossil record, you can assume both ranges were present, yes or no?

RandomGuy

02-10-2011, 06:53 PM

I'm not quibbling over the measurements, but the unknown factors that lead to the measured results. There is no way to account for the unknowns.

"there is no way to account for the unknowns" is simply misleading.

You want a COMPLETE data set that is neither feasible, nor desireable.

This is a pretty direct parallel to the creationists.

After asking for "intermediary species" for decades, using their absence to say "AHA, SEE, evolution is just wrong because they can't produce these things. When they are presented with these things, they now demand as proof absolute 100% genetically sequenced organisms along every step of the evolutionary tree to prove evolution.

We don't need to nail down everything, every POSSIBLE factor to draw reasonable conclusions about the world around us.

RandomGuy

02-10-2011, 07:27 PM

From Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water; Figures (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/450.figures-only):

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/2000yearPlankticforaminiferaldata-edit.jpg

The more I read the data methodology from the study and look at what you are attempting to argue the worse your arguments look to me.

It looks an awefully lot like are attempting to nitpick and think that nitpick invalidates the entire premise of the paper, just like truthers do when they start nitpicking details from the 9-11 commission report or other things.

Let's start breaking down your criticisms, so I can demonstrate how spurious they really are.

The subpolar species spike you circle here is directly accompanied by a similar spike in polar species. The reason that a lot of scientific papers use rolling averages, is that they smoothe out the outliers that tend to skew data.

In making conclusions about the temperature of the waters you are looking for a contrast between the species, not at absolute spikes of both.

Do the following to statements correctly apply to the study's premise?:

Warmer waters in general = more subpolar than polar specimens
cooler waters = more polar than subpolar specimens

MannyIsGod

02-10-2011, 07:47 PM

Wild Cobra

02-10-2011, 10:49 PM

I am pretty sure I do understand you, that is the problem. I understand enough to suspect you are pissing on my shoes and trying to tell me its raining.

If a species requires two conditions to thrive, one temperature, and the other PH, then if you see that organism in the fossil record, you can assume both ranges were present, yes or no?
Both ranges yes. You forget salinity, which also changes with glacier melt. Also, don't forget the polar cap melt variability. You now have 3 major variables, before including carbon levels. The difficulty comes in determining solving the problem with so many changing variables. On top of that, being a strait, how many of these organisms settles after death, from living out of the area, but brought in by the ever changing ocean currents.

Too many variables. There easily could have been long term changes that are impossible to account for.

RandomGuy

02-11-2011, 10:37 AM

He does this shit all the time, RG. At some point its not even worth dignifying his posts with responses. He might have a point if these were the LONE indicator but the fact that they correspond with many other proxies is a good indicator there is value in the data.

You have to remember the whole purpose of this thread, and that is not to prove/disprove global warming, although some discussion of that is necessary. Rather, it is to prove that people like Wild Cobra, Darrin, and Yonivore, are being dishonest, illogical, and dogmatic, i.e. pseudoscientific.

That is why I took the first two posts of the thread and have catalogued the logical fallacies, intellectual dishonesty, and irrational emotional arguments presented. I have stopped doing that, but probably should get around to it at some point.

The longer the discussion gets, the more material I can mine out of it, and the better my overall case regarding the nature of the "skeptics" gets, global warming or no.

DarrinS

02-11-2011, 10:44 AM

You have to remember the whole purpose of this thread, and that is not to prove/disprove global warming, although some discussion of that is necessary. Rather, it is to prove that people like Wild Cobra, Darrin, and Yonivore, are being dishonest, illogical, and dogmatic, i.e. pseudoscientific.

As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming.

•“Snow season length and snow depth are very likely to decrease in most of North America … except in the northernmost part of Canada where maximum snow depth is likely to increase (Christensen et al., 2007).” (EPA)

•“Decreases in snowcover and increases in winter rain on bare soil will likely lengthen the erosion season and enhance erosion intensity.” (EPA)

•“Rising temperatures have generally resulted in rain rather than snow in locations and seasons where climatological average temperatures for 1961 to 1990 were close to freezing (0 °C).” (EPA)

•“As temperatures rise, the likelihood of precipitation falling as rain rather than snow increases, especially in autumn and spring at the beginning and end of the snow season, and in areas where temperatures are near freezing. Such changes are observed in many places, especially over land in middle and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, leading to increased rains but reduced snowpacks.” (IPCC)

RandomGuy

02-11-2011, 10:48 AM

DarrinS

02-11-2011, 10:51 AM

Is it pseudoscientific to post raw data here? Just curious.

RandomGuy

02-11-2011, 11:51 AM

Is it pseudoscientific to post raw data here? Just curious.

Of course not. I'm a bit hurt that you might suggest that.

By all means, please.

RandomGuy

02-11-2011, 12:20 PM

As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming.

•“Snow season length and snow depth are very likely to decrease in most of North America … except in the northernmost part of Canada where maximum snow depth is likely to increase (Christensen et al., 2007).” (EPA)

•“Decreases in snowcover and increases in winter rain on bare soil will likely lengthen the erosion season and enhance erosion intensity.” (EPA)

•“Rising temperatures have generally resulted in rain rather than snow in locations and seasons where climatological average temperatures for 1961 to 1990 were close to freezing (0 °C).” (EPA)

•“As temperatures rise, the likelihood of precipitation falling as rain rather than snow increases, especially in autumn and spring at the beginning and end of the snow season, and in areas where temperatures are near freezing. Such changes are observed in many places, especially over land in middle and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, leading to increased rains but reduced snowpacks.” (IPCC)

What exactly does this mean? (what is your point?)

I am honestly a bit puzzled.

DarrinS

02-11-2011, 12:22 PM

What exactly does this mean? (what is your point?)

I am honestly a bit puzzled.

Seriously?

Wild Cobra

02-11-2011, 12:33 PM

What exactly does this mean? (what is your point?)

I am honestly a bit puzzled.
It doesn't surprise me that you don't understand. Afterall, you don't understand my points either. Sorry I don't have the time to explain it better.

RandomGuy

02-11-2011, 12:36 PM

From Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water; Figures (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/450.figures-only):

[Big giant picture omitted, but can be seen at the following URL.-RG]

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/2000yearPlankticforaminiferaldata-edit.jpg

"Looks wamer in 750 BCE than today" seems to be assuming that temperature can only be determined by the presence of subpolar species. That isn't what the study says.

You completely glossed over the spike in polar species in the same data point.

For your assertion to be correct, the polar cold loving species would have to thrive in warmer water. Since both cold and warm loving species spiked at the same point, it seems reasonable to assume this is simply an outlier, and that is probably one of the reasons it was simply used as a data point in a rolling average. Scientific papers don't normally spend a lot of time addressing outliers, especially if they seem to be far out of line of the vast majority of other data.

Do polar cold loving polar species like warmer water, WC?
They spiked inside that little circle too.
Yourself admitted that temperature was a condition required for such species to thrive, in addition to other parameters.

RandomGuy

02-11-2011, 12:42 PM

It doesn't surprise me that you don't understand. Afterall, you don't understand my points either. Sorry I don't have the time to explain it better.

You don't understand the study, and haven't read the methodology you posted. You may delude yourself that I dont' understand your points, but I do, rather well.

This "you just haven't done your research" or "you just don't understand" is exactly the same sort of thing that I get from 9-11 Truthers and moon landing hoaxers when I start picking apart their arugments.

They too, cannot believe that someone who disagrees with them is smart enough to fully comprehend their "complex" theories.

By all means, keep thinking/saying that. It makes the case of the OP easier.

DarrinS

02-11-2011, 12:43 PM

Strangely enough, the temperature record is SO reliable that a new study is underway to address current denials, er, criticisms.

http://www.berkeleyearth.org/study

The project has the following goals:
1) To merge existing surface station temperature data sets into a new comprehensive raw data set with a common format that could be used for weather and climate research

2) To review existing temperature processing algorithms for averaging, homogenization, and error analysis to understand both their advantages and their limitations

3) To develop new approaches and alternative statistical methods that may be able to effectively remove some of the limitations present in existing algorithms

4) To create and publish a new global surface temperature record and associated uncertainty analysis

5) To provide an open platform for further analysis by publishing our complete data and software code as well as tools to aid both professional and amateur exploration of the data

=======================

The science has already been settled, so why this?

RandomGuy

02-11-2011, 12:49 PM

Both ranges yes. You forget salinity, which also changes with glacier melt. Also, don't forget the polar cap melt variability. You now have 3 major variables, before including carbon levels. The difficulty comes in determining solving the problem with so many changing variables. On top of that, being a strait, how many of these organisms settles after death, from living out of the area, but brought in by the ever changing ocean currents.

Too many variables. There easily could have been long term changes that are impossible to account for.

Unfortunately for your argument, it seems a few people with PhD's in biology would disagree. As I have repeatedly pointed out, this is a well-studied organism, and this is one of many studies.

You seem to be asking me to "take your word for it", so in making up my own mind who to believe, your expertise becomes relevant.

Do you hold a degree in biology?

Are you claiming to know more about the biology of florimefera than someone who has actually read all of these studies, and used them as a basis for their own work, in a field they hold an advanced degree in?

Wild Cobra

02-11-2011, 12:54 PM

"Looks wamer in 750 BCE than today" seems to be assuming that temperature can only be determined by the presence of subpolar species. That isn't what the study says.

You forget my correlation wo the AW temperature.

You completely glossed over the spike in polar species in the same data point.

So...

What unknown variable could have spiked both?

For your assertion to be correct, the polar cold loving species would have to thrive in warmer water. Since both cold and warm loving species spiked at the same point, it seems reasonable to assume this is simply an outlier, and that is probably one of the reasons it was simply used as a data point in a rolling average. Scientific papers don't normally spend a lot of time addressing outliers, especially if they seem to be far out of line of the vast majority of other data.

Simple outlier is a way to justify the single sigma process. Throw out any data that could actually prove your theory wrong.

Do polar cold loving polar species like warmer water, WC?
They spiked inside that little circle too.
Yourself admitted that temperature was a condition required for such species to thrive, in addition to other parameters.

No, temperature is one condition. I can hypothesize why that occurred, but have no means myself to test it as a theory. Since the time samples are meaningless for normal lifespans, one of several possibilities is that one species thrived, then a sudden change killed most and then the other thrived, within the same slice of core data. Another possibilities is that nutrients they share in common were so abundant that a temperature that would normally curtail one's growth didn't matter.

Again, there are too many unknowns to give this paper any more credibility than what you true believers do. It supports your viewpoint, therefore it is valid. However, the true scientists is skeptical until the skepticism is ruled out. Scientifically. That has not even come close to happening.

RandomGuy

02-11-2011, 12:55 PM

Seriously?

Seriously. I can guess what you are shooting at, and if I am right about that guess, it is yet another strawman.

My guess:

"because of the recent snow/cold event in the US, that one event disproves the quotes I gave."

The reason this is another strawman is that one event, or even one particular cold spell or snowfall, does not make for enough data to make for a TREND. It is even quite probable that predictions about specific localized effects can be wrong, and "AGW caused by CO2" to still be correct.

You keep making this same logical fallacy over and over and over. It has been shown to be dishonest, and logically flawed, yet you persist in thread after thread after thread after post after post after post in repeating it.

It wasn't logical the first time you tried it, and it isn't logical now. Why do you keep trying this dishonest tactic?

DarrinS

02-11-2011, 12:56 PM

From http://www.berkeleyearth.org/methodology

Duplicate filter: We first separately searched each archive for multiple copies of the same record and eliminated the duplicates.

:wow

Bad values filter: We flagged and excluded from further study values that had pre-existing indicators of data quality problems associated with instrumental error, in-filling of missing data, and/or post-hoc manipulations. We further removed values that exceeded global climate extremes (e.g. +5000 F).

:wow :wow

DarrinS

02-11-2011, 12:57 PM

Seriously. I can guess what you are shooting at, and if I am right about that guess, it is yet another strawman.

My guess:

The reason this is another strawman is that one event, or even one particular cold spell or snowfall, does not make for enough data to make for a TREND. It is even quite probable that predictions about specific localized effects can be wrong, and "AGW caused by CO2" to still be correct.

You keep making this same logical fallacy over and over and over. It has been shown to be dishonest, and logically flawed, yet you persist in thread after thread after thread after post after post after post in repeating it.

It wasn't logical the first time you tried it, and it isn't logical now. Why do you keep trying this dishonest tactic?

Wrong. Warmists have been saying that global warming causes both more snow and less snow. Which is it?

By the way, it's not ONE event -- it's three hardcore winters in a row.

RandomGuy

02-11-2011, 01:00 PM

Do polar cold loving polar species like warmer water, WC?

You forget my correlation wo the AW temperature.

So...

What unknown variable could have spiked both?

Simple outlier is a way to justify the single sigma process. Throw out any data that could actually prove your theory wrong.

No, temperature is one condition. I can hypothesize why that occurred, but have no means myself to test it as a theory. Since the time samples are meaningless for normal lifespans, one of several possibilities is that one species thrived, then a sudden change killed most and then the other thrived, within the same slice of core data. Another possibilities is that nutrients they share in common were so abundant that a temperature that would normally curtail one's growth didn't matter.

Again, there are too many unknowns to give this paper any more credibility than what you true believers do. It supports your viewpoint, therefore it is valid. However, the true scientists is skeptical until the skepticism is ruled out. Scientifically. That has not even come close to happening.

That didn't answer my question.

Do polar cold loving polar species like warmer water, WC?

Wild Cobra

02-11-2011, 01:01 PM

DarrinS

02-11-2011, 01:03 PM

I wonder how they plan to account for terrain changes like concrete, asphalt, etc. Then there is the problem with air conditioning vents, and even buildings or trees adding shade.

Intersting though:

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Analysis (http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Summary.pdf)

I think that's one of the criticisms they are trying to address. It's is freakin Berkeley, but it seems like they are being very transparent about what they are doing. I'm going add that site to my favorites and keep a close eye on their progress.

EDIT> From that summary doc:

Avoid gridding.

All three major research groups currently rely on spatial gridding in their averaging algorithms. As a result, the effective averages may dependant on the choice of grid pattern and may be sensitive to effects such as the change in grid cell area with latitude. Our algorithms seek to eliminate
explicit gridding entirely.

I'd like to see how they are going to do that.

Wild Cobra

02-11-2011, 01:05 PM

I think that's one of the criticisms they are trying to address. It's is freakin Berkeley, but it seems like they are being very transparent about what they are doing. I'm going add that site to my favorites and keep a close eye on their progress.
Yes, have to appreciate that transparency at least.

RandomGuy

02-11-2011, 01:09 PM

Since the time samples are meaningless for normal lifespans, one of several possibilities is that one species thrived, then a sudden change killed most and then the other thrived, within the same slice of core data. Another possibilities is that nutrients they share in common were so abundant that a temperature that would normally curtail one's growth didn't matter.

This doesn't fly either.

Two groups species inhabit the same ecological niche in the same geography.

Given three conditions, light, temperature, water nutrients, they only really differ in preference for temperature.

If the nutrients were so abundant, the species more suited for the temperature would simply outcompete the one that wasn't as suited for the same conditions. You would not see both spike at the same time.

You are attempting to assert the process of natural selection, that works everywhere else in the world, doesn't work in this one place.

Since this underlying assumption required for your statement "it was warmer in 750 BCE" than it was today is provably false, then we can discard your assertion.

If on the other hand, the polar species had not spiked at the same time, you would have a point. As it is, I have a hard time accepting the implication you are making, i.e. natural selection works everywhere else but here.

Sorry.

DarrinS

02-11-2011, 01:10 PM

Evidently, there's some mass climate change denial movement going on at UC Berkely. :lmao

RandomGuy

02-11-2011, 01:16 PM

To top it off, C13 samples by nominal methods use a 1 sigma statistical measurement. I learned long ago, for reliability, you want 3 sigma or better.

How specifically did this study address C13?

Tell me exactly how they got it wrong, and assume I am scientifically literate enough to understand it.

Please be as specific as possible, and reference the study you are attempting to debunk, and why its methodology regarding this isotope is flawed.

RandomGuy

02-11-2011, 01:19 PM

As for the study itself. How did they account for the changing Thermohaline circulation? Please don't ask any of us to think the maunder minima didn't change any of that, since it is the only actual deep "strait" to the arctic ocean.

To assume this also didn't change the water chemistry would be in error. It would also be a part of any actual temperature changes.

There is no doubt that the variability of the sun's activity is influencing climate. The Maunder minimum in the Little Ice Age is a good
example. They do say exactly that the advection of warm Atlantic Water, driven to the Fram Strait by the thermohaline circulation but also by winds, was weaker during the LIA.

Wild Cobra

02-11-2011, 01:20 PM

This doesn't fly either.

Two groups species inhabit the same ecological niche in the same geography.

Given three conditions, light, temperature, water nutrients, they only really differ in preference for temperature.

If the nutrients were so abundant, the species more suited for the temperature would simply outcompete the one that wasn't as suited for the same conditions. You would not see both spike at the same time.

You are attempting to assert the process of natural selection, that works everywhere else in the world, doesn't work in this one place.

Since this underlying assumption required for your statement "it was warmer in 750 BCE" than it was today is provably false, then we can discard your assertion.

If on the other hand, the polar species had not spiked at the same time, you would have a point. As it is, I have a hard time accepting the implication you are making, i.e. natural selection works everywhere else but here.

Sorry.
Again, you fail to address a key item in my hypothesis. You ignore it and attack other items.

How much time did the 1/2 cm slice of the core sample represent again?

Remind me... I forget how much time to tell you it was.

RandomGuy

02-11-2011, 01:27 PM

MannyIsGod

02-11-2011, 01:30 PM

Darrin, do you have data showing the northern hemisphere snow depth/cover is above average? I've looked but I can't seem to find any and I used to have a page with running data but I can't find it any longer.

Wild Cobra

02-11-2011, 01:31 PM

RandomGuy

02-11-2011, 01:39 PM

Again, you fail to address a key item in my hypothesis. You ignore it and attack other items.

How much time did the 1/2 cm slice of the core sample represent again?

Remind me... I forget how much time to tell you it was.

I find it best to pick apart your arguments one point at a time as clearly and completely as possible. I will get to the rest of it in due time.

Wild Cobra

02-11-2011, 01:46 PM

I find it best to pick apart your arguments one point at a time as clearly and completely as possible. I will get to the rest of it in due time.
LOL...

You only try to pick apart the lesser ones. Not the ones with real substance.

Guess you are incapable of that.

RandomGuy

02-11-2011, 02:12 PM

LOL...

You only try to pick apart the lesser ones. Not the ones with real substance.

Guess you are incapable of that.

"try" Funny word.

Do you still stand by your assertion that, "if there were so many nutrients in the water, the temperature wouldn't matter"?

Halberto

02-11-2011, 02:21 PM

Wow. Just saw that Darrin and wild cobra were defending fox news in a previous thread and now they're denying climate change. Go figure.

RandomGuy

02-11-2011, 02:24 PM

Wow. Just saw that Darrin and wild cobra were defending fox news in a previous thread and now they're denying climate change. Go figure.

Check out the first and second posts in this thread. :toast

I need to update those summaries, and am about to add a few things for WC over the weekend.

RandomGuy

02-11-2011, 02:27 PM

What you glossed over in your rush to pick apart a study you haven't read, is that single spike, while having a larger concentration of critters per cm3 than the rest of the data, had proportions of critters similar to the rest of the data set. It is the proportions that are the important thing from the study.

That is the key point *you* have failed to address.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=195&pictureid=1512

Care to try and find that spike here?

DarrinS

02-11-2011, 02:53 PM

DarrinS

02-11-2011, 02:55 PM

Wow. Just saw that Darrin and wild cobra were defending fox news in a previous thread and now they're denying climate change. Go figure.

Actually, I fully accept that climate change has been occuring for 4½ billion years.

DarrinS

02-11-2011, 03:00 PM

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/png/monthlyanom/nhland01.png

RandomGuy

02-11-2011, 03:09 PM

Again, you fail to address a key item in my hypothesis. You ignore it and attack other items.

How much time did the 1/2 cm slice of the core sample represent again?

Remind me... I forget how much time to tell you it was.

They didn't really say within the study how much time the 1/2 cm slice was that I could find.

Tell me, what do you think it was?

RandomGuy

02-11-2011, 03:16 PM

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/png/monthlyanom/nhland01.png

"northern hemisphere"??

You do know that there are areas in the Northern Hemisphere outside of North America, right?

That makes it a *little* difficult to use the graph to support your assertion regarding snowfall on the North American continent, don't you think?

RandomGuy

02-11-2011, 03:21 PM

How specifically did this study address C13?

They used standard methods. they stated the method, which uses a single sigma statistical process.

Tell me exactly how they got it wrong, and assume I am scientifically literate enough to understand it.

Please be as specific as possible, and reference the study you are attempting to debunk, and why its methodology regarding this isotope is flawed.

I'm not saying they got it wrong, but was pointing out a flaw in the standard process that can influence matters. I'm far less concerned about the accuracy of the 13C testing than the changing O18 levels in the water, [emphasis mine-RG] and biological process, because of variable melting of glacier ice than cannot be quantified. The glacier ice could have released huge volumes of differencing concentrations.

Can you agree it is possible that at both the beginning and end of a core slice, there could be a small range of isotopic levels, but in the middle... The target time... there could be numbers with a large enough delta that they were cast out? A single sigma process is good for some things. But if you really want the true average indication of a large sample slice, you want to use 3 sigma, and exclude less than 1% of your samples as outliers. Not 1/3rd or more with the single sigma process.

1) "they used standard methods" isn't very specific. This strongly suggests to me that you either don't know what "standard" methods are, or how they were used in the study,

2) You didn't really reference the study methodology and where you think they got it wrong, other than to talk generally about a "single sigma process", yet still couldn't reference where specifically they used the "single sigma process". This further suggests to me you didn't really read the thing.

Ever hear the expression "give someone enough rope to hang themselves"?

3) They never measured 13C or 18O. They did however use 14C (radiocarbon dating) to estimate the age of various 5mm calibrating layers. If you had bothered to fully read the methodology you would know that.

Given your statements concerning how concerned you were about the study's "accuracy of the 13C testing" over "the changing O18 levels" I can only conclude that the only thing you know about this study are what the news article said, and what wikipedia said, aside from your one debunked attempt at finding flaw with your hugemongous screencaps of their given graphs.

As for:

Can you agree it is possible that at both the beginning and end of a core slice, there could be a small range of isotopic levels, but in the middle... The target time... there could be numbers with a large enough delta that they were cast out?

The entire premise of this statement is that they were using the mentioned isotopes to measure counts of critters per cm3. They weren't, so I would have to disagree with the statement.

Attempting to pick apart theories you don't understand, reports you haven't read, and completely dismissing entire bodies of work in a field, biology, that you are not really qualified in, are all pretty much hallmarks of the pseudoscientist.

Sorry, I give these biologists a much greater chance of being right about this, than your critiques having any validity.

Just in case you try to weasel out of this, you are much clearer "this study is invalid because of its measurement of 13C and 18O" here:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4962479&postcount=1064

Here is the methodology of the study:
Supporting Online Material for Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2011/01/26/331.6016.450.DC1/Spielhagen.SOM.pdf)

The entire main point you are attempting to make goes down the tubes, because it is based on a provably, factually incorrect assertion.

DarrinS

02-11-2011, 03:28 PM

"northern hemisphere"??

You do know that there are areas in the Northern Hemisphere outside of North America, right?

Manny asked for it -- I supplied.

That makes it a *little* difficult to use the graph to support your assertion regarding snowfall on the North American continent, don't you think?

Especially when I made no such assertion.

RandomGuy

02-11-2011, 03:32 PM

As I said before:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=195&pictureid=1512

That certainly seems to suggest recently consistant warming trends in water entering the arctic.

or, in the words of the study Wild Cobra didn't read, because he just *knows* its wrong (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4962417&postcount=1059)

In sediments from before ~1900 CE, 10 to 40% of all planktic foraminifers belong to subpolar species. In contrast, the youngest sediments reflecting the past ~100 years show a steep increase in subpolar foraminifer fluxes and an unprecedented inversion of the subpolar/polar species ratio, reaching 66% subpolar specimens in the surface sample (Fig. 3B).

Lastly, FWIW:

I remember reading somewhere the authors are getting ready to publish another paper on the finding concerning light oxygen isotopes in H2O from glacier melt.

It would seem they are quite cognizant of the effects of glacial meltwater on ocean floor sediments in the area. Also by the by, the study's main author, you know the one with the PhD, has, according to what I could find spent his entire 25 year career studying artic marine sediments. I would imagine he is BY FAR more familiar with what affects them than WC, who is asking me to take his word over those of the authors of the study because "they didn't consider all the factors".

Also regarding the method of chemical analysis they did actually use:

The Mg/Ca measurements which give paleotemperatures (Fig. 3D), used a method fairly independent of the amount of Mg or Ca available in the ocean water.

When the planktic foraminifers make their shells they incorporate more Mg with higher temperatures. This happens for thermodynamic reasons because at higher temperatures Mg ions fit better in the crystal lattice of calcium carbonate than at lower temperatures. This is simple crystal physics and independent of additional Mg or Ca from any source.

That is one of the little biological tidbits that I would guess the authors are aware, but Wild Cobra is not, despite his knowledge of chemistry.

RandomGuy

02-11-2011, 03:34 PM

Manny asked for it -- I supplied.

Especially when I made no such assertion.

Fair enough, I missed where Manny asked that. My apologies about the misunderstanding.

MannyIsGod

02-11-2011, 04:03 PM

Darrin provided the appropriate dataset. It definitely shows that snow cover in recent years has been higher than usual in Janruary but I really would prefer more of a yearly picture and one for the entire cryosphere. With the artctic being mainly ocean, the loss of sea ice is a big deal as opposed to snow cover.

If climate change is producing a scenario where the NAO block happens and causes colder winters over the land area but warmer air over the arctic (hence record low sea ice coverage in the middle of winter as we're having) then that could explain a raised snow cover extent while also producing lower cryosphere totals in general.

Also, 3 years is an extremely short term event and we'd need to see a trend over a longer period of time before drawing too many conclusions but I do think RGs assertion that this was to be expected misses the mark. Its neither expected nor not expected as of yet but in the long run you should not expect winters to somehow maintain an all around colder appearance if you are adding more energy to the system and I have always maintained no one should be using short term variability as a way to prove either side of the debate because it does not do that for anyone. Short term variability is just that: Short term.

Using stupid phrases out of context IE "the science is settled" is one of Darrin's hallmarks, however. There are plenty of uncertainties (not the least of which are future effects on the planet and what it all means in the long run) in climate science and thats pretty much the bottom line.

MannyIsGod

02-11-2011, 04:05 PM

Also Darrin, look at your link:

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/table_rankings.php?ui_set=1

What does it show for overall yearly data? Is it negative or positive? What are the months outside of the winter like?

MannyIsGod

02-11-2011, 04:10 PM

The yearly average for 2010 snowfall anomaly is -243,000 KM2. Even with the surplus in the winter, we were well below average. 2009 was even worse, the anomaly was -379,500 KM2 per month.

I've got no problem addressing inconsistencies with the picture being presented in the media but the least you can do is provide an accurate picture based on the very same data you're providing.

MannyIsGod

02-11-2011, 04:15 PM

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/images/anom_nhland.gif

There are a few spikes in this from storm systems like the US saw over the past month, but the as you can see the long running average is now frequently below normal. We have not seen extended periods of above normal snow cover for 30 years or so.

MannyIsGod

02-11-2011, 04:20 PM

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=2

More data from Darrin's link above shows that winter and fall snow cover has remained fairly stable over the long run but the spring graph shows quite different results:

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/images/nhland_season2.gif

They dont' have a graph for the summer and I don't know why.

MannyIsGod

02-11-2011, 04:23 PM

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/png/monthlyanom/nhland01.png

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/png/monthlyanom/nhland06.png

Its been 15 years since a positive anomaly for June and nearly 30 since consecutive years with such an anomaly.

MannyIsGod

02-11-2011, 04:44 PM

Heavy snow events--a contradiction to global warming theory?
Global warming skeptics regularly have a field day whenever a record snow storm pounds the U.S., claiming that such events are inconsistent with a globe that is warming. If the globe is warming, there should, on average, be fewer days when it snows, and thus fewer snow storms. However, it is possible that if climate change is simultaneously causing an increase in ratio of snowstorms with very heavy snow to storms with ordinary amounts of snow, we could actually see an increase in very heavy snowstorms in some portions of the world. There is evidence that this is happening for winter storms in the Northeast U.S.--the mighty Nor'easters like the "Snowmageddon" storm of February 5-6 and "Snowpocalypse" of December 19, 2009. Let's take a look at the evidence. There are two requirements for a record snow storm:

1) A near-record amount of moisture in the air (or a very slow moving storm).
2) Temperatures cold enough for snow.

It's not hard at all to get temperatures cold enough for snow in a world experiencing global warming. According to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, the globe warmed 0.74°C (1.3°F) over the past 100 years. There will still be colder than average winters in a world that is experiencing warming, with plenty of opportunities for snow. The more difficult ingredient for producing a record snowstorm is the requirement of near-record levels of moisture. Global warming theory predicts that global precipitation will increase, and that heavy precipitation events--the ones most likely to cause flash flooding--will also increase. This occurs because as the climate warms, evaporation of moisture from the oceans increases, resulting in more water vapor in the air. According to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, water vapor in the global atmosphere has increased by about 5% over the 20th century, and 4% since 1970. This extra moisture in the air will tend to produce heavier snowstorms, assuming it is cold enough to snow. Groisman et al. (2004) found a 14% increase in heavy (top 5%) and 20% increase in very heavy (top 1%) precipitation events in the U.S. over the past 100 years, though mainly in spring and summer. However, the authors did find a significant increase in winter heavy precipitation events have occurred in the Northeast U.S. This was echoed by Changnon et al. (2006), who found, "The temporal distribution of snowstorms exhibited wide fluctuations during 1901-2000, with downward 100-yr trends in the lower Midwest, South, and West Coast. Upward trends occurred in the upper Midwest, East, and Northeast, and the national trend for 1901-2000 was upward, corresponding to trends in strong cyclonic activity."

The strongest cold-season storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent for the U.S.
The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) began as a presidential initiative in 1989 and was mandated by Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-606), which called for "a comprehensive and integrated United States research program which will assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change." This program has put out some excellent peer-reviewed science on climate change that, in my view, is as authoritative as the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. In 2009, the USGCRP put out its excellent U.S. Climate Impacts Report, summarizing the observed and forecast impacts of climate change on the U.S. The report's main conclusion about cold season storms was " Cold-season storm tracks are shifting northward and the strongest storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent".

The report's more detailed analysis: "Large-scale storm systems are the dominant weather phenomenon during the cold season in the United States. Although the analysis of these storms is complicated by a relatively short length of most observational records and by the highly variable nature of strong storms, some clear patterns have emerged (Kunkel et al., 2008).

Storm tracks have shifted northward over the last 50 years as evidenced by a decrease in the frequency of storms in mid-latitude areas of the Northern Hemisphere, while high-latitude activity has increased. There is also evidence of an increase in the intensity of storms in both the mid- and high-latitude areas of the Northern Hemisphere, with greater confidence in the increases occurring in high latitudes (Kunkel et al., 2008). The northward shift is projected to continue, and strong cold season storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent, with greater wind speeds and more extreme wave heights". The study also noted that we should expect an increase in lake-effect snowstorms over the next few decades. Lake-effect snow is produced by the strong flow of cold air across large areas of relatively warmer ice-free water. The report says, "As the climate has warmed, ice coverage on the Great Lakes has fallen. The maximum seasonal coverage of Great Lakes ice decreased at a rate of 8.4 percent per decade from 1973 through 2008, amounting to a roughly 30 percent decrease in ice coverage. This has created conditions conducive to greater evaporation of moisture and thus heavier snowstorms. Among recent extreme lake-effect snow events was a February 2007 10-day storm total of over 10 feet of snow in western New York state. Climate models suggest that lake-effect snowfalls are likely to increase over the next few decades. In the longer term, lake-effect snows are likely to decrease as temperatures continue to rise, with the precipitation then falling as rain".

Commentary
Of course, both climate change contrarians and climate change scientists agree that no single weather event can be blamed on climate change. However, one can "load the dice" in favor of events that used to be rare--or unheard of--if the climate is changing to a new state. It is quite possible that the dice have been loaded in favor of more intense Nor'easters for the U.S. Mid-Atlantic and Northeast, thanks to the higher levels of moisture present in the air due to warmer global temperatures. It's worth mentioning that heavy snow storms should be getting increasingly rare for the extreme southern portion of the U.S. in coming decades. There's almost always high amounts of moisture available for a potential heavy snow in the South--just not enough cold air. With freezing temperatures expected to decrease and the jet stream and associated storm track expected to move northward, the extreme southern portion of the U.S. should see a reduction in both heavy and ordinary snow storms in the coming decades.

The CapitalClimate blog has a nice perspective on "Snowmageddon", and Joe Romm of climateprogress.org has some interesting things to say about snowstorms in a warming climate.

References
Changnon, S.A., D. Changnon, and T.R. Karl, 2006, , "Temporal and Spatial Characteristics of Snowstorms in the Contiguous United States", J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 45, 1141.1155.

Groisman, P.Y., R.W. Knight, T.R. Karl, D.R. Easterling, B. Sun, and J.H. Lawrimore, 2004, "Contemporary Changes of the Hydrological Cycle over the Contiguous United States: Trends Derived from In Situ Observations," J. Hydrometeor., 5, 64-85.

Kunkel, K.E., P.D. Bromirski, H.E. Brooks, T. Cavazos, A.V. Douglas, D.R. Easterling, K.A. Emanuel, P.Ya. Groisman, G.J. Holland, T.R. Knutson, J.P. Kossin, P.D. Komar, D.H. Levinson, and R.L. Smith, 2008: Observed changes in weather and climate extremes. In: Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate: Regions of Focus: North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific Islands [Karl, T.R., G.A. Meehl, C.D. Miller, S.J. Hassol, A.M. Waple, and W.L. Murray (eds.)]. Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.3. U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Washington, DC, pp. 35-80.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1427

DarrinS

02-11-2011, 05:25 PM

If climate change is producing a scenario where the NAO block happens and causes colder winters over the land area but warmer air over the arctic (hence record low sea ice coverage in the middle of winter as we're having) then that could explain a raised snow cover extent while also producing lower cryosphere totals in general.

I don't think we fully understand what is causing that. That's all I'm trying to say.

Also, 3 years is an extremely short term event and we'd need to see a trend over a longer period of time before drawing too many conclusions but I do think RGs assertion that this was to be expected misses the mark. Its neither expected nor not expected as of yet but in the long run you should not expect winters to somehow maintain an all around colder appearance if you are adding more energy to the system and I have always maintained no one should be using short term variability as a way to prove either side of the debate because it does not do that for anyone. Short term variability is just that: Short term.

We're on a 12-year period with no appreciable warming. There was a 30 year period between about 1940 to 1970 where there was no appreciable warming (even though CO2 was climbing rapidly during that time). Yes, it is assinine to talk about one severe winter as if it means something. But it is equally assinine for NASA to come out and say 2010 is tied for the 2nd,3rd (whatever is is) hottest year, as if THAT means something.

I'm extremely curious about that Berkely study. Perhaps they will develop the "gold standard" temperature record.

Using stupid phrases out of context IE "the science is settled" is one of Darrin's hallmarks, however. There are plenty of uncertainties (not the least of which are future effects on the planet and what it all means in the long run) in climate science and thats pretty much the bottom line.

Just being a smartass. Beats the hell out of talking about Bill O'Reilly.

RandomGuy

02-11-2011, 05:33 PM

We're on a 12-year period with no appreciable warming.

Link? data?

I see you have made that claim more than once, with no support for it yet.

Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-6.gif

Despite this thread, I don't follow everything, but am unaware of any recent cooling.

DarrinS

02-11-2011, 05:44 PM

Link? data?

I see you have made that claim more than once, with no support for it yet.

All temperature records besides GISS show no appreciable warming since 98.

RandomGuy

02-11-2011, 05:49 PM

There was a 30 year period between about 1940 to 1970 where there was no appreciable warming (even though CO2 was climbing rapidly during that time).

Second verse, same as the first...

Beware the fallacy of straight-line thinking.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/Historical-Emissions.preview.JPG

I crunched the numbers in the graph, and examined the period 1906 to 2004, then 50% of all the CO2 emissions from that period took place in the period 1981-2004, approximately. The last 23 years emitted as much CO2 as the first 75 years.

Oddly enough, most of the changes seen here take place after 1981 or so.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/gw/global_surface_temps.png

This is the nature of exponential growth. CO2 emissions globally continue to grow by a percentage each year, roughly commesurate with global economic growth.

If one posits a 2.5% growth in emissions for the period 2004 to 2030, then that 24 year period sees emissions equal to the entire 98 years that preceded it.

If we are indeed having an effect, then we would expect that effect to be more pronounced in the next 24 years than it has been in the last 100.

Given that, all of these effects seem to be pretty likely to accelerate along with emissions.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/gw/sun-energy-variation.jpg

Wild Cobra will have to work harder and harder to massage his figures to show that the sun is responsible for these effects, as the sun continues its pretty predictable short-term cycles.

Again, assuming that CO2 is one of the primary drivers of the observed warming trend.

We went through this, ending with your "I measured temerature in two different offices" attempt to prove how little things have changed recently.

I think your confirmation bias leads you to look at the data in terms that are far too absolute. "the total scale of change is small or negligible" rather than on a relative scale.

As I have pointed out previously, we will emit more CO2 in the next 28 years or so than we did in the previous 76-100. Given the amount that overall CO2 atmospheric ppm has changed with that,

We have data about 20 ppm increase in 3,000 years. (+1 ppm per 150 years)
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/TemperatureandCO2overthelast12000years50pctannotat ed.jpg
(you know the one you attributed to ancient Egyption SUV's)

but then recently like 70 ppm in 50 years? (+1 ppm per 8.5 months) (1960 to 2010)

http://co2now.org/images/stories/widgets/co2_widget_brundtland_600_graph.gif

??

Sure mankind's emissions of CO2 are small compared to what nature does. If the system was in a rough equilibrium before, and you add more CO2 than the climate system can absorb, is it not logical that the extra CO2 will simply stick around?

This suggests to me that we have barely begun to see what happens when you add a LOT of CO2 to the air. Add in another 70+ ppm increase in the next 24 years, (total guess) and the effects will be a whole lot more noticible and harder to deny each year.

RandomGuy

02-11-2011, 05:52 PM

All temperature records besides GISS show no appreciable warming since 98.

ah yes. the "absolute terms"

But this period has been on average warmer than most of the years that preceded it, correct?

Seems to me you are, yet again, cherry picking the way the data is presented or what data is presented.

DarrinS

02-11-2011, 07:57 PM

ah yes. the "absolute terms"

But this period has been on average warmer than most of the years that preceded it, correct?

Seems to me you are, yet again, cherry picking the way the data is presented or what data is presented.

You can call it cherry picking, but it is what it is -- 12 years. Another 12 years without warming, and we're talking about a quarter century with no statistically significant warming.

sickdsm

02-11-2011, 09:14 PM

Summary of this thread.

"Here's a graph/chart/text i found from a google search result agreeing with my thoughts"

"Here's a graph/chart/text i found from a google search result disagreeing with your thoughts"

"Here's more data that says you're an assclown"

"Teabaggers"

"Obumma"

Come to think about it, that's pretty much every discussion on the internet. Funny how little some people actually know if they can't look it up. Not any of you guys personally on this thread, just an observation in general.

Wild Cobra

02-12-2011, 09:34 AM

Wow. Just saw that Darrin and wild cobra were defending fox news in a previous thread and now they're denying climate change. Go figure.
Liar.

I don't deny climate change.

I demand proper evidence that the AGW theory is correct. To date, it should still only be a hypothesis. Scientifically, it does not meet the definition as a theory.

Wild Cobra

02-12-2011, 09:37 AM

Check out the first and second posts in this thread. :toast

I need to update those summaries, and am about to add a few things for WC over the weekend.
My God...

Do you realize how foolish you are making yourself look? If you understood what I am saying, implying, etc... you wouldn't be making such idiotic statements.

Wild Cobra

02-12-2011, 09:41 AM

Wild Cobra

02-12-2011, 10:47 AM

One of the things they did was measure Mg/CA concentrations.

Can you please explain to me why this is relevant to foraminifers? You seem to have claimed to read a lot of these studies, so perhaps you can explain how your arguments fit into the biology of these creatures. Be specific.
Mg/Ca is a method, accurate to +/- 2.5 C for warmer temperature areas, and is less accurate below 5 C.

Did you research that method at all? The reason it is only accurate to a couple degrees is because of the unknown other variables. There is still controversy as to what the correct formula to use is, because the results vary so much.

Wild Cobra

02-12-2011, 10:54 AM

Wild Cobra

02-12-2011, 10:57 AM

Lastly, FWIW:

I remember reading somewhere the authors are getting ready to publish another paper on the finding concerning light oxygen isotopes in H2O from glacier melt.

LOL...

Please...

Don't tell me they are that stupid...

Light oxygen?

Wild Cobra

02-12-2011, 11:28 AM

Consider this (http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/reprint/38/9/863.pdf):

The Mg/Ca paleotemperature proxy is not without complications. Foraminiferal calcite is susceptible to dissolution, diagenesis, and seawater carbon chemistry potentially obscuring the original temperature signal. Because the Mg cation destabilizes the crystal lattice, dissolution lowers the Mg/Ca ratio of some species (Dekens et al., 2002). Recrystallization of carbonate in the sediments, on the other hand, may add inorganic calcite, which has a higher partition coefficient than biotic calcite and may add Mg-rich carbonate to a test (Morse and Bender, 1990).

MannyIsGod

02-12-2011, 11:28 AM

Wild Cobra

02-12-2011, 11:33 AM

One oxygen isotope has a higher molecular weight than the other common isotope. I forget the numbers but the point is that climate conditions affect the amount of each given isotope at various places around the globe. Its a useful proxy.
True, I agree.

But testing for "light" oxygen isotopes?

Have you see what their half-life is?

The longest lived "light" oxygen isotope has a half-life of about 2 minutes.

RandomGuy

02-12-2011, 03:54 PM

RandomGuy

02-12-2011, 04:05 PM

They didn't really say within the study how much time the 1/2 cm slice was that I could find.

Tell me, what do you think it was?

No shit Sherlock. You are too stupid to calculate it yourself, so how can you be smart enough to think you are getting over on me?

You are owning yourself royally!

Re-read what I said. I said they didn't specify exactly how much time each slice was that I could find.

I didn't say I didn't know, or couldn't calculate it from what they did say. Those are both your assumptions, because you want to think that someone who disagrees with you is less intelligent because they disagree with you.

Let me be a bit more specific then:
I did note that it could be calculated from their description of their work. I haven't taken the time to do so.

If it means that much to you that I calculate it, I will do so.

and yes, I know where you are going with this line of reasoning. but hey, by all means, make your case.

RandomGuy

02-12-2011, 04:36 PM

Random...

I just spent the last hour carefully reading all my posts about this 2,000 year warming paper. No place do I state that the waters did not warm, not that the paper might have a correct conclusion in the end.

Again, you keep assuming my argument is different than what it is, making you very laughable.

As for the 13C and 18O, I went off on that after you brought it up. If they didn't do the 18O testing, then the paper is even more lame than I believed.

My argument is simple. Too many variables that cannot be quantified. It's hard enough to predict past water temperatures in non glacier areas. The melting of unknown time slices of glacier ice and ice caps of unknown age seriously throws all into uncertainty.

Of course you went off on it after I brought it up. I was simply guessing as to what they were doing based on the limited information I had. I admitted that I had not read the methodogy and was speculating. You were perfectly content with dismissing the study out of hand without evaluating the methodology or underlying science involved.

Unfortunately "too many variables that cannot be quantified" sounds suspiciously like "This poses a threat to my world view, so I will dismiss it outright". This is the quality of argument that most creationsists make.

The lead researcher has a PhD, and has spent 25 years studying this. He seems to be of the opinion that reasonable conclusions can be drawn from the samples he and his teem took.

As for "unknown time slices of glacier ice" ??? You still haven't read the study in its entirety? The samples they took were of ocean bottom sediments, not ice.

I have asked you to be specific as possible in all of your responses. Why do you keep insisting on speaking in hand-wavy generalities like this?

I am seriously beginning to suspect you are deliberately avoiding specifics, because you don't really know enough to do so.

RandomGuy

02-12-2011, 05:00 PM

Consider this (http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/reprint/38/9/863.pdf):

Indeed. "complications" does not mean that the method is invalid on its face.

It simply means that one has to be careful and precise, and mindful of complicating factors.

All of the potential complicating factors were addressed in the study's methodology description.

They also mentioned quite a bit of other supporting material, that is probably out of your field of expertise, no offense.

Basically all of your arguments boil down to:

"Take my word for it, they are all bunk"

Yet you are much less qualified in the field of biology, or geology than the Phd's, grad students, and people who actually publish scientific papers in this field. A good chunk of this is in basic chemistry, but how that chemistry applies to the biological and geological processes is, as far as I have seen, outside your area of expertise.

You are attempting to do a peer review on a paper you didn't bother to read, in a field outside your area of expertise, and are asking me to accept your word on it over people who know more about it, and study it full time. Further, you are doing it in a blatantly dogmatic way.

Sorry, but no thanks. There is a difference between honest skepticism and pseudoscientific hackery, and your dismissal of these methods smacks of the same kind of blanket dismissals of radiocarbon dating that creationists have to fall back on to cling to their irrational beliefs.

RandomGuy

02-12-2011, 06:04 PM

Wild Cobra

02-13-2011, 09:10 AM

Unfortunately "too many variables that cannot be quantified" sounds suspiciously like "This poses a threat to my world view, so I will dismiss it outright". This is the quality of argument that most creationsists make.
You simply don't get it, do you. To isolate one unknown in a mathematical formula, you have to account for the other variables. They have absolutely no way to account for some of the unknowns.

The lead researcher has a PhD, and has spent 25 years studying this. He seems to be of the opinion that reasonable conclusions can be drawn from the samples he and his teem took.
Opinion... Reasonable conclusion?

At what statistical accuracy?

As for "unknown time slices of glacier ice" ??? You still haven't read the study in its entirety? The samples they took were of ocean bottom sediments, not ice.
Duh... I do comprehend these things. You obviously do not understand that these Plankton being studied live in the water, and their nutrients are subject to all kinds of changes. Changing volumes of glacier ice and ice caps melting throw in factors that isn't a problem in other areas of the world.

I have asked you to be specific as possible in all of your responses. Why do you keep insisting on speaking in hand-wavy generalities like this?
My statements stand by themselves. Not my problem you are ignorant to why they apply.

I am seriously beginning to suspect you are deliberately avoiding specifics, because you don't really know enough to do so.
I don't need to be specific. All I need to do is point out factors that throw off the study.

Wild Cobra

02-13-2011, 09:11 AM

All of the potential complicating factors were addressed in the study's methodology description.

Bullshit.

Wild Cobra

02-13-2011, 09:14 AM

"try" Funny word.

Do you still stand by your assertion that, "if there were so many nutrients in the water, the temperature wouldn't matter"?
I don't recall exactly what I said, but my point is that temperature is not the only thing that allows for growth. I explained other possibilities as well.

Have they ruled out everything I mentioned?

I think not.

RandomGuy

02-14-2011, 01:25 PM

I don't recall exactly what I said, but my point is that temperature is not the only thing that allows for growth. I explained other possibilities as well.

Have they ruled out everything I mentioned?

I think not.

You were attempting to support your annotation on the graph, "it was hotter in 750 BCE than today", by showing a spike in the graph of warm-loving florimifera at concentrations higher than present day.

To reach this conclusion, you ignored the distict and parallel spike in cold-loving species, that indicates it was simply an anomolous spike in the data.

Another [possibility] is that nutrients they share in common were so abundant that a temperature that would normally curtail one's growth didn't matter.

This ignores the principle of natural selection, where one species will out compete another if it is more suited for environmental conditions found.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=195&pictureid=1512

I would then ask, if the principle of natural selection holds, what is a reasonable conclusion to draw from this data set, given that the only difference in suitability between the polar species and the subpolar species is their affinity for certain temperatures?

RandomGuy

02-14-2011, 01:40 PM

I don't need to be specific. All I need to do is point out factors that throw off the study.

Cosmored, you say they got moon rocks using robotic probes, can you show me specificallly what kind of 1960's design would work?

We have no idea what kind of classified technology they had. If they were able to soft-land the Surveyor probes, some kind of remote-control technology existed. [translation: No I can't get you a specific answer]

Cosmored, you say that all the papers on those moon rocks were faked, and the scientists were "in on it".

They're not impossible to fake. All they have to do is lie and publish the lie. I showed how it's possible for the government to get scientists to lie on a large scale in this post.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4731597&postcount=1090

And they have redefined what peer review is, that's why their material is not trustworthy.

Cosmored, can you tell me how they faked all the telemetry data going into the mission control during the moonshots, if they were faked?

I don't need to be specific. All I need to do is point out factors that throw off your theory that they were real.

Cosmored, can you tell me exactly how this conspiracy has managed to keep things secret for so long?

I don't need to be specific. All I need to do is point out factors that throw off your theory that they were real.

Cosmored, can you tell me who was in on the conspiracy?

I don't need to be specific. All I need to do is point out factors that throw off your theory that they were real.

Your "they won't explain my factors" schtick starts sounding an awful lot like Cosmoreds "plausible explanations".

RandomGuy

02-14-2011, 02:27 PM

Consider this (http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/reprint/38/9/863.pdf):
"The Mg/Ca paleotemperature proxy is not without complications."

Indeed. "complications" does not mean that the method is invalid on its face.

It simply means that one has to be careful and precise, and mindful of complicating factors.

All of the potential complicating factors were addressed in the study's methodology description.

Bullshit.

For Mg/Ca analysis ~50 tests of N. pachyderma (sin.) per sample were picked from the 100-150 μm fraction. The size interval was kept narrow in order to avoid a possible size dependent bias (S6). In preparation of Mg/Ca measurements, foraminifers were gently crushed between glass slides. Subsequently each sample underwent the trace metal cleaning procedures described elsewhere (S7, S8). Samples were analyzed for Mg/Ca by magnetic sector single-collector ICP-MS on a Thermo-Finnigan Element2, using methods adapted from Rosenthal et al. (S9) with a long-term 1σ precision of Mg/Ca for of 0.5% (S10). Four samples were rejected due to low post-cleaning mass recovery (< 5μg CaCO3) (S10), leaving a total of 26 reliable Mg/Ca data (including two replicates). Elemental ratios of Fe/Ca and Al/Ca (detrital material) and Mn/Ca (secondary diagenetic coatings) were analyzed coincidental with Mg/Ca. No values of Mn/Ca exceeded 24 μmol mol-1, which is well below the threshold for likely trace metal contamination (S11). One sample (0.25 cm) had Fe/Ca and Al/Ca values exceeding 100 μmol mol-1. However, this single sample was not omitted as its Mn/Ca ratio did not show signs of contamination and its Mg/Ca value was similar to surrounding samples.

To convert the measured Mg/Ca ratios into temperatures we used the N. pachyderma equation of Elderfield and Ganssen (S12): Mg/Ca (mmol mol-1) = 0.5 exp 0.10 T. This equation is indistinguishable from the Norwegian Sea N. pachyderma (sin.) calibration of Nürnberg (S13)
and the cultured N. pachyderma (dex.) calibration of von Langen et al. (S14). Application of an alternative equation of Kozdon et al. (S15) results in consistently lower temperatures throughout the core which are also lower than the SIMMAX results. Tests from the upper 10 cm of the core showed some signs of dissolution and were fragile. Generally, partly dissolved tests should be avoided as they may give too low Mg/Ca ratios and the reconstructed temperatures may be underestimated (S16). With respect to core MSM5/5-712-1, however, we regard the close similarity between temperatures reconstructed from independent SIMMAX and Mg/Ca results as evidence of a minor effect of dissolution.

Were dissolution of importance, it would affect also the planktic foraminifer associations used
for SIMMAX. Fragile subpolar species would be more easily dissolved than the only polar, robust species N. pachyderma (sin.), eventually leading to lower calculated SIMMAX temperatures especially for the youngest time interval. Thus, carbonate dissolution within the uppermost part of the core would result in an underestimation (by both methods) of the Atlantic Water temperature difference between the Modern (Industrial) Period and, e.g., the Medieval Climate Anomaly.

Replicate Mg/Ca analysis on separate picks at 0 cm and 28 cm core depth revealed differences of 0.01 mmol mol-1 and 0.12 mmol mol-1, respectively. Although this is insufficient to provide a robust estimate of reproducibility, a pooled standard deviation of order 0.05-0.1 mmol mol-1 is typical for foraminifera (e.g., Refs. S17, S18). The standard deviation for each interval before and after AD 1850 was 0.1 mmol mol-1, which translates to relatively large temperature ranges at the cold end of the Elderfield and Ganssen (S12) exponential calibration: +1.3/-1.5C pre-industrial and +1.1/-1.2C post-industrial. Since this is close to our estimated reproducibility, we cannot interpret the temperature variability within each interval, which we suggest is dominated by random error. However the mean within each interval is well constrained, with standard errors (stdev/sqrt[n]) of ±0.3C pre-industrial and ±0.5C post-industrial.

They discussed dissolution, proper cleaning of the tests, multiple nearby soil samples to get a baseline for sedimentary mineral composition, and several other factors that would require more reading of studies.

Your "consider this" link discussed quite a few professional papers, that one would assume that a researcher with 25 years experience of studying arctic basin geology/biology would presumedly be aware.

I will at this point re-state my earlier assertion with a rather important qualifier:

All of the potential complicating factors appear to me to be addressed in the study's methodology description.

Can you tell me which exact "complication" or "factor" that you feel they did not address?

boutons_deux

02-14-2011, 02:57 PM

Sec24Row7

02-14-2011, 03:14 PM

Nothing is decided. Needs more studies (showing Kock Bros bogus-science-for-hire).

--WC

Kock Bros are worth $35B, and they don't care if they turn the entire US into a Lake-Charles-LA-style disease cluster.

Scientists are herd animals... and ALL of them are for hire... otherwise they would starve.

Wild Cobra

02-14-2011, 06:26 PM

You were attempting to support your annotation on the graph, "it was hotter in 750 BCE than today", by showing a spike in the graph of warm-loving florimifera at concentrations higher than present day.
That's your problem. You keep misreading what I say and imply intent I never said. I never said it was hotter! I said it could have been.

To reach this conclusion, you ignored the distict and parallel spike in cold-loving species, that indicates it was simply an anomolous spike in the data.
I explained a possibility why both were in the same sample. You ignore what I say. Are you hard headed, a total fool, or what?

This ignores the principle of natural selection, where one species will out compete another if it is more suited for environmental conditions found.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=195&pictureid=1512
Idiot. That graph is percentage. They both cannot add up to greater than 100%.

I would then ask, if the principle of natural selection holds, what is a reasonable conclusion to draw from this data set, given that the only difference in suitability between the polar species and the subpolar species is their affinity for certain temperatures?
Go back, I explained a possibility why that occurred in the data.

Wild Cobra

02-14-2011, 06:29 PM

They discussed dissolution, proper cleaning of the tests, multiple nearby soil samples to get a baseline for sedimentary mineral composition, and several other factors that would require more reading of studies.

Your "consider this" link discussed quite a few professional papers, that one would assume that a researcher with 25 years experience of studying arctic basin geology/biology would presumedly be aware.

I will at this point re-state my earlier assertion with a rather important qualifier:

All of the potential complicating factors appear to me to be addressed in the study's methodology description.

Can you tell me which exact "complication" or "factor" that you feel they did not address?
Yes I know. That still doesn't address a changing recrystallization, or other possibilities.

Why are you arguing to their accuracy? I am only saying the study cannot be accepted at face value, pointed out some reasons why, but you act as if you would bet your life on it.

RandomGuy

02-14-2011, 08:28 PM

That's your problem. You keep misreading what I say and imply intent I never said. I never said it was hotter! I said it could have been.

I have not done that to my knowledge. In all cases, I have tried to be as fair and accurate as possible when it comes to charactorizing/restating what it is you say, or what I believe you are saying.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/2000yearPlankticforaminiferaldata-edit.jpg

You didn't say "could have" been. You said "looks warmer 750 BCE than today".

If you had bothered reading the entire study, you would also have known that ultimately, they didn't include the polar species spike because the relative proportions of the two species remained in line with all the other data, even if that sample draw had a higher concentration of overall organisms.

This particular bit simply reinforces my belief that you don't really understand the science behind this field of study as much as you would have me/us believe.

RandomGuy

02-14-2011, 08:40 PM

To reach this conclusion, you ignored the distict and parallel spike in cold-loving species, that indicates it was simply an anomolous spike in the data.

I explained a possibility why both were in the same sample. You ignore what I say. Are you hard headed, a total fool, or what?

You explained a possibility, yes.

What you don't seem to be able to comprehend is that the possibility you mentioned, i.e. "so many nutrients in the water that temperature didn't matter" is irreconcilable with the principles of natural selection, if you are attempting to say "it looks warmer than today".

IF the water was "warmer than today" then you would see the warm-loving species simply outcompete the cold-loving species, because they would have a decided reproductive advantage.

This is what we see today, where the proportions have inverted from all the sampled norms found in the core sample.

For your "possibility" to be valid and it was "warmer than today" in that sample, one of the fundamental principles of biology and evolutionary theory would have to be proven not to hold.

Are you attempting to disprove the process of natural selection?

RandomGuy

02-14-2011, 08:43 PM

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=195&pictureid=1512

Idiot. That graph is percentage. They both cannot add up to greater than 100%.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Your point is?

RandomGuy

02-14-2011, 08:48 PM

Yes I know. That still doesn't address a changing recrystallization, or other possibilities.

Why are you arguing to their accuracy? I am only saying the study cannot be accepted at face value, pointed out some reasons why, but you act as if you would bet your life on it.

The changing recrystallization seems to have been addressed when they compared the core sample to nearby geology. They also mentioned that.

Since you are grasping for these, here are a few:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Rice_straw.jpg

Nothing you have said convinces me that you know more than the biologists and geologists conducting the study.

Sorry.

Unless you care to pull some "other possiblities" out of your ass? I doubt they will stink any less than what you are shoveling now.

sickdsm

02-14-2011, 10:28 PM

The ability to look things up is really amazing. I love the internet. :flag:

It is amazing. But its also a downfall to learning the old way. I would venture to say that alot of threads like these, the graph's, charts and info are used to try to only cement ones opinion. A year or two from now, that info is lost on most because of WHY we looked that up.

I haven't read much of this thread. I really doubt you or anyone else active in this thread here has changed their opinion though, mainly because of how long it is.

Wild Cobra

02-15-2011, 06:01 AM

I have not done that to my knowledge. In all cases, I have tried to be as fair and accurate as possible when it comes to charactorizing/restating what it is you say, or what I believe you are saying.

Bullshit.

You didn't say "could have" been. You said "looks warmer 750 BCE than today".

So I could have been less ambiguous on the graphics text I added. Everywhere else, I never said it was, only words to the effect that it could have been. My God... I'm guilty of not using enough words. OK...

It looks like it could have been warmer about 750 BCE.

Please...

Don't tell me you are not misrepresenting my intent, when I have always used less pointed words in the rest of my argument.

You are definitely distorting my intent.

Fuck You!

If you had bothered reading the entire study, you would also have known that ultimately, they didn't include the polar species spike because the relative proportions of the two species remained in line with all the other data, even if that sample draw had a higher concentration of overall organisms.

Yep, throw out data that doesn't fit their 1 sigma world. That's fine when ruling out similar data from multiple samples, but with an approximate 47 year slice, that data may have been correct.

Remember, this is all from just one location's data.

This particular bit simply reinforces my belief that you don't really understand the science behind this field of study as much as you would have me/us believe.

What ever you want to believe. No skin off my back.

Let me ask you this? Do you understand (before looking it up like I bet you will) what 1 sigma, 2 sigma, 3 sigma, etc. represent in statistical sampling?

RandomGuy

02-16-2011, 10:56 AM

Let me ask you this? Do you understand (before looking it up like I bet you will) what 1 sigma, 2 sigma, 3 sigma, etc. represent in statistical sampling?

Yes I do, and no I didn't have to look it up. Statistical sampling is something I use at my job, and something I am pretty familiar with.

Which is why I know enough to think your blathering about "single sigma methodology" is disengenuous.

RandomGuy

02-16-2011, 11:09 AM

So I could have been less ambiguous on the graphics text I added. Everywhere else, I never said it was, only words to the effect that it could have been. My God... I'm guilty of not using enough words. OK...

It looks like it could have been warmer about 750 BCE.

Please...

Don't tell me you are not misrepresenting my intent, when I have always used less pointed words in the rest of my argument.

You are definitely distorting my intent.

Fuck You!

Your implication, whether the "could" was added or not, was not supported by the data.

You looked at only the part of the graph that you thought it looked like it supported your assertion,i.e. the spike in warm-loving species concentration while ignoring the part that didn't, i.e. the spike in cold-loving species concentration.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=195&pictureid=1512

The spike you were looking at still fell within reasonable margins, proportionally, as the other historical norms, indicating cooler temperatures, given the predominance of cold-loving species.

The *only* way to think that is to either misunderstand the data, or not incorporate the principle of natural selection into your thinking.

Sorry.

Wild Cobra

02-16-2011, 11:21 AM

Your implication, whether the "could" was added or not, was not supported by the data.

You looked at only the part of the graph that you thought it looked like it supported your assertion,i.e. the spike in warm-loving species concentration while ignoring the part that didn't, i.e. the spike in cold-loving species concentration.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=195&pictureid=1512

The spike you were looking at still fell within reasonable margins, proportionally, as the other historical norms, indicating cooler temperatures, given the predominance of cold-loving species.

The *only* way to think that is to either misunderstand the data, or not incorporate the principle of natural selection into your thinking.

Sorry.
No, a large temperature change could have happened during that time slice in the core sample. Some other event as well could have happened. Then this percentage graph you provide is of only a specific size, separating them by specific species. Not just polar and subpolar.

I won't pretend to have all the answers. Again, I am calling the study into question. You are supporting it without an ounce of skepticism.

RandomGuy

02-16-2011, 11:58 AM

No, a large temperature change could have happened during that time slice in the core sample. Some other event as well could have happened. Then this percentage graph you provide is of only a specific size, separating them by specific species. Not just polar and subpolar.

I won't pretend to have all the answers. Again, I am calling the study into question. You are supporting it without an ounce of skepticism.

*could have* indeed.

I will readily admit:

There is a potential that there may have been, within the last 2000 years, a short-lived increase in temperature of waters flowing into the artic over this point.

The increase in temperatures would have to have been short-lived simply because if it had been longer than a few years it would have severely skewed the data, and produced proportions inconsistant with the rest of the data found.

The methodology of the study "lumps" periods of time together to get what amounts to averages over those periods of time. A short-lived spike would be undetected by this study.

In this, your specific criticism is technically valid.

Such a short-lived spike, though, would be accompanied by other indicators, like sudden drops in ice cover. As noted previously, the study's author has been studying the arctic and its environment, such as ice cover, for 25 years. I presume he would be cognizant of such things.

The recent spike though appears to be sustained enough to start showing up in the sediments such as looked at here.

I don't find the study's conclusion all that unreasonable, though. Given that the most recent layers seem to have parameters FAR out of that which appears to be normal does mean we can make some reasonable assumptions.

As I said have before, there is a vast gulf between honest skepticism and dogmatic dimissals of entire fields of study.

RandomGuy

02-24-2011, 08:29 PM

Seems Yoni is in the mood to give me more material to prove the OP.

Have at it.

Wild Cobra

02-27-2011, 01:17 PM

RandomGuy

02-28-2011, 06:09 PM

You know, just a few nights ago, we set again record lows in Oregon. Both in Hood River and Portland.

Now I get it that the global average is what is said to be rising, but shouldn't we have also seen an end to record lows, especially multiples in a year?

If greenhouse gasses are the cause of warming, then keep in mind, they work at all temperatures, all seasons, with or without the sun.

Use a little common sense. We wouldn't have record winter lows at night if the greenhouse effect was the major cause of warming.

Once again, the total of the system acts differently than the individual parts.

If warming in some regions causes weather patterns to shift, then you can indeed get record cold temperatures in areas. If cold arctic air that normally stays in the arctic shifts due to these patterns then you get record cold snaps, as was apparently the case recently.

I can tell you that central Texas a coupel of years ago spent more days with highs over 100F than in recoreded history.

We are seeing more extreme weather of all sorts, and seems to be in line with changes we would expect from the additional CO2 that we have pumped into the atmosphere.

Wild Cobra

02-28-2011, 07:34 PM

Once again, the total of the system acts differently than the individual parts.

If warming in some regions causes weather patterns to shift, then you can indeed get record cold temperatures in areas. If cold arctic air that normally stays in the arctic shifts due to these patterns then you get record cold snaps, as was apparently the case recently.

I can tell you that central Texas a coupel of years ago spent more days with highs over 100F than in recoreded history.

We are seeing more extreme weather of all sorts, and seems to be in line with changes we would expect from the additional CO2 that we have pumped into the atmosphere.
LOL...

Excuses, excuses...

rationalizing are we?

RandomGuy

03-01-2011, 09:56 AM

LOL...

Excuses, excuses...

rationalizing are we?

Merely stating my understanding of the topic.

Do complex systems sometimes behave in unexpected ways?

Wild Cobra

03-01-2011, 10:08 AM

Merely stating my understanding of the topic.

Do complex systems sometimes behave in unexpected ways?
Absolutely.

Thing is though, the greenhouse effect is specifically different in how it reacts with heat, vs. direct and other indirect heating. Maybe my statement didn't make sense. I'm sure it doesn't to most. It would take a pretty lengthy posting to explain the difference.

RandomGuy

04-27-2011, 08:19 AM

Absolutely.

Thing is though, the greenhouse effect is specifically different in how it reacts with heat, vs. direct and other indirect heating. Maybe my statement didn't make sense. I'm sure it doesn't to most. It would take a pretty lengthy posting to explain the difference.

So if complex systems sometimes behave in unexpected ways, then your 99.99999% conclusion that CO2 is not responsible for observed changes would seem to be something of an overstatement, would it not?

Wild Cobra

04-27-2011, 12:19 PM

So if complex systems sometimes behave in unexpected ways, then your 99.99999% conclusion that CO2 is not responsible for observed changes would seem to be something of an overstatement, would it not?
If you want to believe that. Remember, I am not saying CO2 does not cause warming. I am only saying it is impossible for it to cause as much warming as stated by the IPCC. For that I am that confident. I am less confident when attempting to define a level, but if you insist, I will give it about 0.5 ± 0.2 watts/meter of radiative forcing for the time being. The IPCC gives it 1.66 ± ?.

RandomGuy

04-27-2011, 01:04 PM

If you want to believe that. Remember, I am not saying CO2 does not cause warming. I am only saying it is impossible for it to cause as much warming as stated by the IPCC. For that I am that confident. I am less confident when attempting to define a level, but if you insist, I will give it about 0.5 ± 0.2 watts/meter of radiative forcing for the time being. The IPCC gives it 1.66 ± ?.

Feel free to publish a paper with data to support that thesis and give it to a peer reviewed journal. No one is stopping you.

RandomGuy

04-27-2011, 01:06 PM

If you want to believe that. Remember, I am not saying CO2 does not cause warming. I am only saying it is impossible for it to cause as much warming as stated by the IPCC. For that I am that confident. I am less confident when attempting to define a level, but if you insist, I will give it about 0.5 ± 0.2 watts/meter of radiative forcing for the time being. The IPCC gives it 1.66 ± ?.

... and then there is methane... (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/04/fracking-methane/)

Wild Cobra

04-27-2011, 01:27 PM

... and then there is methane... (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/04/fracking-methane/)
Though methane is given a greater GWP (global warming potential) number, it's still not as potent of a greenhouse gas as CO2 is. That's because it is still in the high slope area of its warming curve.

How often have I focused on methane anyway? I am generally pointing out three things.

1) CO2 does not have the stated warming potential. It is in 3rd place as a warming contributor.

2) Solar irradiance changes are the largest factor for global warming we can see in our lifetimes.

3) Black Carbon (soot) is the second largest contribute to global warming, and the most potent cause of anthropogenic warming.

RandomGuy

04-28-2011, 12:06 PM

Though methane is given a greater GWP (global warming potential) number, it's still not as potent of a greenhouse gas as CO2 is. That's because it is still in the high slope area of its warming curve.

How often have I focused on methane anyway? I am generally pointing out three things.

1) CO2 does not have the stated warming potential. It is in 3rd place as a warming contributor.

2) Solar irradiance changes are the largest factor for global warming we can see in our lifetimes.

3) Black Carbon (soot) is the second largest contribute to global warming, and the most potent cause of anthropogenic warming.

Once again, I get the distinct impression that you didn't really read something linked here.

Carrying on however, CO2, even though it has less overall warming potential than methane, lingers far longer, sustaining any gains over time. Given that it looks to double in atmospheric concentration since 1900 or so in the coming years, even a weak forcing will cause changes.

Secondly, the outgassing of very large amounts of methane from the current natural gas boom (http://www.google.com/search?q=methane+emissions+from+the+natural+gas+in dustry), even if this gas is much shorter lived as the linked article noted, will provide a complimentary warming effect.

You and Darrin will be forced to start quibbling over a new gas with demonstrably more warming potential. Have fun with that.

Given rising oil prices, I see a good deal of energy demand shifting to natural gas, and the new fraking technology with its attending methane outgassing, will only increase at a geometric rate.

DarrinS

04-28-2011, 12:56 PM

You and Darrin will be forced to start quibbling over a new gas with demonstrably more warming potential. Have fun with that.

No need to quibble. Will just keep my eye on the unremarkable change in global temps.

mouse

04-29-2011, 02:51 AM

Scoreboared Reference post. Links to follow over the course of the dialogue.

Yonivore:

First logical fallacy (ad hominem):
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4677328&postcount=405
Questions asked of Yonivore, Yoni ignored:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668282&postcount=7

Questions asked of Obstructed View:

First batch of 3.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668313&postcount=13
#4:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668327&postcount=17
#5:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668389&postcount=32

Lack of responses:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668374&postcount=27
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668384&postcount=29

Fair answers:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668380&postcount=28
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668389&postcount=32

DarrinS:

First illogical statement (illogical because it assumes the premise):
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668799&postcount=58
Second illogical statement (ad hominem)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4670471&postcount=237
Third illogical statement (ad hominem)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4671143&postcount=275
Fourth illogical statement (strawman)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4671237&postcount=278
Fifth illogical statement (appeal to popularity)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672034&postcount=286
Sixth illogical statement (strawman)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672682&postcount=323
Seventh illogical statement (slippery slope)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672707&postcount=332
Eighth illogical statement (ad hominem):
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4673385&postcount=389
Ninth illogical statement (ad hominem)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672868&postcount=364
Tenth illogical statement (strawman)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4810380&postcount=563
Eleventh illogical statement (strawman)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4820172&postcount=643
Twelfth illogical statement (strawman)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4822005&postcount=713

Fair question concerning DarrinS' assertion asked:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672758&postcount=338
Question ignored:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672772&postcount=342
Question restated:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672790&postcount=347
Question ignored
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672822&postcount=357
One failed question, discarding DarrinS false assertion, final post in series:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672831&postcount=361

Second fair question regarding an assertion:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4679228&postcount=412

Cherry-picking data:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4810375&postcount=560

Wild Cobra:

One logical fallacy, 4 unproven assertions:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4784642&postcount=454
Second logical fallacy, strawman argument:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4789303&postcount=524
Third logical fallacy, appeal to belief:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4819971&postcount=622
Fourth logical fallacy, ad hominem:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4820716&postcount=677
Failure to answer a direct question about a concrete asserted hypothesis:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4956955&postcount=1018
Confirmation bias: (dismissing scientific work without reading it, because he just *knows* its wrong, sight unseen)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4962417&postcount=1059
(also see where this confirmation bias leads him to an erroneous conclusion based on a provably wrong starting assumption:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4968018&postcount=1120
More confirmation bias (Experts with PhDs and decades worth of research and studies can't possibly have considered enough factors to make reasonable claims in their fields of study, even when these factors are readily recognizable by someone with no credentials in that field because he disagrees with the ultimate conclusion):
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4964720&postcount=1075

I know you might think I am trying to be sarcastic,funny, or insult you in some way but the truth is if this quote of yours is not a cut and paste you should seriously look into writing screenplays and movie scrips.

RandomGuy

04-29-2011, 09:54 AM

I know you might think I am trying to be sarcastic,funny, or insult you in some way but the truth is if this quote of yours is not a cut and paste you should seriously look into writing screenplays and movie scrips.

Nope, not a cut and paste, just added to slowly over time with multiple edits.

It is less a work of fiction than of data analysis, so the skill involved is less that of creativity, than that of recognizing and categorizing illogical statements.

I will take that as a compliment, but my skills at data analysis earn me a decent income already. :)

RandomGuy

06-22-2011, 01:15 PM

No need to quibble. Will just keep my eye on the unremarkable change in global temps.

That any anything else Fox "news" tells you to think.

Ad Hominem, rinse, repeat.

MannyIsGod

07-22-2011, 11:41 AM

ChumpDumper

07-22-2011, 12:08 PM

Pfft....It snowed earlier this year. That's all I need to know.

DarrinS

07-22-2011, 12:50 PM

RandomGuy

07-22-2011, 01:02 PM

More extremes for this year in the current US heat wave and perhaps the more ominus sign is the fact that Arctic Sea Ice extent is at its lowest recorded level by an astonishing 10% at this point of the year. On pace to go lower than 2007 but thats still months off and hte pace of melt could slow.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

The thing that will start coming up next in the data for the Deniers to dance around will be the increases in methane emissions from fraking on the part of natural gas producers. (http://www.fairwarning.org/2011/04/fracking-emissions-erase-clean-advantage-of-natural-gas-study-says/)

Deniers have danced around the CO2 levels and warming effects, and will now be forced to claim that warming effects of methane are "not that bad" to maintain their claim that the planet is not getting warmer, or that that warming is just part of natural trends.

RandomGuy

07-22-2011, 01:04 PM

Methane Causes Vicious Cycle In Global Warming (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122638800)

Carbon dioxide is the gas we most associate with global warming, but methane gas also plays an important role. For reasons that are not well understood, methane gas stopped increasing in the atmosphere in the 1990s. But now it appears to be once again on the rise. Scientists are trying to understand why — and what to do about it.

Methane gas comes from all sorts of sources including wetlands, rice paddies, cow tummies, coal mines, garbage dumps and even termites. Drew Shindell, at NASA's Goddard Institute in New York, says, "It's gone up by 150 percent since the pre-industrial period. So that's an enormous increase. CO2, by contrast, has gone up by something like 30 percent."

More From This Series
New Anti-Smog Restrictions Could Warm Planet

Jan. 25, 2010
Molecule for molecule, methane is much more effective than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere. And that's just part of the trouble.

RandomGuy

07-22-2011, 01:08 PM

Maybe we can get an enterprising scientist to measure the methane levels in two different rooms in a building. (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4915557&postcount=877)

ChumpDumper

07-22-2011, 01:11 PM

I think they'll start talking about cow farts.

DarrinS

07-22-2011, 01:11 PM

Deniers

RandomGuy

07-22-2011, 01:14 PM

Deniers

Beefcake!

DarrinS

07-22-2011, 01:17 PM

:devil Pseudoscience :devil

ChumpDumper

07-22-2011, 01:21 PM

Light bulb.

boutons_deux

07-22-2011, 01:28 PM

"the increases in methane emissions from fraking on the part of natural gas producers."

tar sands is another new, and vastly increasing source of methane.

RandomGuy

07-22-2011, 01:38 PM

:devil Pseudoscience :devil

I guess you are tired of giving me fodder for the OP?

Sure you don't want to pony up to another logical fallacy, or demonstrable intellectually dishonest argument?

MannyIsGod

07-22-2011, 02:23 PM

Dishwashing Alpha Male

Wild Cobra

07-22-2011, 02:36 PM

RandomGuy

08-15-2011, 05:15 PM

I wonder what would happen to the way they determine the global temperature if they:

1) Included humidity in the heat content calculation.

2) Stopped cherry picking sites to use.

3) Had sites that remained unchanged in the surrounding landscape since installed.

Guys... give me a break. Climate is always changing, and what is used by the alarmists does no good.

"Climate is always changing" is either a strawman logical fallacy. No climate scientist denies that our climate never changes. Chalk up another one for you.

RandomGuy

08-30-2011, 07:27 AM

Are there any scientists that disagree?

Are any of those people "deniers"? Even the one who worked on IPCC reports?

Creationists like to talk about the number of biologists who disagree with the theory of evolution as well.

They bemoan the fact that scientific peer-review publications don't tend to include creationists on the review panels.

But that's just it... not all biologists believe in macro-evolution. You're just assuming that the ones that believe like you do are correct, and that those that don't are not. So much so, that you all dismiss them from the get go. They number far greater than you would believe. Again, you must resort to the fallacy of consensus gentium to pick one group over the other in the absence of true evidence.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4907725&postcount=469

Given: Creationism is pseudoscience.

Creationists argue that the number of scientists who doubt the theory of evolution is relevant to whether it is true.

Logical form:
People who believe in X argue that the number of scientists who doubt Y, the theory they disagree with is relevant to whether it is true.

People who believe that humans are not responsible for climate change argue that the number of scientists who doubt human-caused climate change is relevant to whether it is true.

Logical conclusion?
??????
Want to bring up that Oregon petition now? or wait until WC does?

RandomGuy

08-30-2011, 07:29 AM

Pseudoscience is any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that demarcate true science. Pseudoscience is designed to have the appearance of being scientific, but lacks any of the substance of science.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

UPDATE:
The end-all, be-all of proof I need to back up this thread's entire assertion.
This one single exchange sums up everything one needs to know about the level of intellect attracted to the global warming denial idea. Thank you DarrinS

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4915557&postcount=877

From Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner

1.The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.

2.He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both. By choice or necessity he operates outside the peer review system (hence the title of the original Antioch Review article, "The Hermit Scientist").

3.He believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.

4.Instead of side-stepping the mainstream, the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked.

5.He coins neologisms. ["new words", in this case meant to sound as scientific as possible-RG]

In reading through numerous climate change threads, and websites, I have found many of the traits rampant within the Denier movement.

While I would not lump all people who doubt the current scientific consensus regarding man's effect on our climate into this category, I can say what I see quoted often by people making the argument almost invariably fits rather well into this.

Quite frankly the most damning thing in my mind is that Deniers tend to eschew the peer-review process entirely. Something shared in common with people putting forth theories about healing properties of some "energetically treated water" and so forth.

I will in this thread attempt to delve into the pseudo-science underpinning the Denier movement. I am sure it will attract the usual suspects with the usual arguments, but since I am here to make MY case regarding this, I will first do that over the next week or two, and then get around to responding to posted material.

What I will do to support my case is twofold. I will first answer questions honestly, to the best of my abilities, and in good faith. I expect the same in return.

Dogmatics tend to be unable to answer honest, fair questions plainly. This is one of *THE* hallmarks of pseudoscience. At the end of this post, I will keep a scoreboard of the number of times I ask honest, direct questions that are not answered by anybody who wants to pick up the gauntlet. I will source this scoreboard for reference in the second follow-up post.

----------------------------------------------------------------
#Questions asked without direct intellectually honest answers:

Yonivore:
One question asked. Completely ignored.
One logical fallacy.

Obstructed view:
Five questions asked.
Two questions dodged without honest answers.
Two questions answered fairly.
One ignored.

DarrinS:
twelve logical fallacies
One false assertion
One question pending, probable second false assertion
Cherry-picking data

Wild Cobra:
Five logical fallacies
Four unproven assertions
Putting forth a scientific sounding but untestable hypothesis
Three instances of confirmation bias

RandomGuy

08-30-2011, 07:30 AM

Scoreboared Reference post. Links to follow over the course of the dialogue.

Yonivore:

First logical fallacy (ad hominem):
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4677328&postcount=405
Questions asked of Yonivore, Yoni ignored:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668282&postcount=7

Questions asked of Obstructed View:

First batch of 3.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668313&postcount=13
#4:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668327&postcount=17
#5:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668389&postcount=32

Lack of responses:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668374&postcount=27
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668384&postcount=29

Fair answers:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668380&postcount=28
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668389&postcount=32

DarrinS:

First illogical statement (illogical because it assumes the premise):
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668799&postcount=58
Second illogical statement (ad hominem)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4670471&postcount=237
Third illogical statement (ad hominem)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4671143&postcount=275
Fourth illogical statement (strawman)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4671237&postcount=278
Fifth illogical statement (appeal to popularity)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672034&postcount=286
Sixth illogical statement (strawman)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672682&postcount=323
Seventh illogical statement (slippery slope)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672707&postcount=332
Eighth illogical statement (ad hominem):
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4673385&postcount=389
Ninth illogical statement (ad hominem)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672868&postcount=364
Tenth illogical statement (strawman)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4810380&postcount=563
Eleventh illogical statement (strawman)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4820172&postcount=643
Twelfth illogical statement (strawman)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4822005&postcount=713

Fair question concerning DarrinS' assertion asked:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672758&postcount=338
Question ignored:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672772&postcount=342
Question restated:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672790&postcount=347
Question ignored
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672822&postcount=357
One failed question, discarding DarrinS false assertion, final post in series:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672831&postcount=361

Second fair question regarding an assertion:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4679228&postcount=412

Cherry-picking data:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4810375&postcount=560

Wild Cobra:

One logical fallacy, 4 unproven assertions:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4784642&postcount=454
Second logical fallacy, strawman argument:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4789303&postcount=524
Third logical fallacy, appeal to belief:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4819971&postcount=622
Fourth logical fallacy, ad hominem:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4820716&postcount=677
Fifth logical fallacy, strawman argument.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5354367&postcount=1202

Failure to answer a direct question about a concrete asserted hypothesis:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4956955&postcount=1018
Confirmation bias: (dismissing scientific work without reading it, because he just *knows* its wrong, sight unseen)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4962417&postcount=1059
(also see where this confirmation bias leads him to an erroneous conclusion based on a provably wrong starting assumption:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4968018&postcount=1120
More confirmation bias (Experts with PhDs and decades worth of research and studies can't possibly have considered enough factors to make reasonable claims in their fields of study, even when these factors are readily recognizable by someone with no credentials in that field because he disagrees with the ultimate conclusion):
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4964720&postcount=1075

DarrinS

08-30-2011, 10:34 AM

You guyz better watch out, because I'm keeping score.

Oh snap!

Sincerely,

RG

http://www.insidesocal.com/outinhollywood/.carson.jpg

clambake

08-30-2011, 10:39 AM

why do conservatives fixate on gay men?

care to answer, darin?

RandomGuy

08-30-2011, 12:03 PM

I'm butthurt about you keeping track of how bad I am at critical thinking.

The easy answer to that is to quit thinking illogically and stop being intellectually dishonest.

It isn't my job to learn critical thinking and the construction of logical arguments for you, that is yours.

(edit)

For someone who probably talks a lot about "personal responsibility", you seem to be hesitant to accept responsibility for your poor reasoning ability.

Why is that?

Wild Cobra

08-30-2011, 01:29 PM

Wild Cobra

08-30-2011, 01:43 PM

Manny...

Is it you, or someone else who says there is no lag in the climate system?

When a forcing like increasing greenhouse gas concentrations bumps the energy budget out of balance, it doesn’t change the global average surface temperature instantaneously. It may take years or even decades for the full impact of a forcing to be felt. This lag between when an imbalance occurs and when the impact on surface temperature becomes fully apparent is mostly because of the immense heat capacity of the global ocean. The heat capacity of the oceans gives the climate a thermal inertia that can make surface warming or cooling more gradual, but it can’t stop a change from occurring.

NASA: Climate Forcings and Global Warming (http://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page7.php) page 7.

Couple that with latent energy caught in the thermohaline circulation, and you have really long times.

Do any AGW believing scientists account for these lags?

Wild Cobra

08-30-2011, 03:23 PM

A few things of interest, pics have links attached:

Lawrence Solomon: Science getting settled (http://ep.probeinternational.org/2011/08/27/lawrence-solomon-science-now-settled/#more-8216); (August 27, 2011)

Now I haven't read this one yet, running out of time. I do recall seeing an article in the past that shows CO2 actually cools the atmosphere at some concentrations. It all depends on the partial pressure, starting temperature, emissivity, etc:

Determination of Mean Free Path of Quantum/Waves and Total Emissivity of the Carbon Dioxide Considering the Molecular Cross Section. (http://www.biocab.org/Mean_Free_Path_Length_Photons.html)
Conclusions

The results obtained by experimentation coincide with the results obtained by applying astrophysics formulas. Therefore, both methodologies are reliable to calculate the total emissivity/absorptivity of any gas of any planetary atmosphere.

At an average density, the atmospheric water vapor allows quantum/waves to cross the troposphere to the tropopause in 0.0245 s, i.e. 2.45 cs (centiseconds). By comparing the ability of water vapor to avoid that quantum/waves escape towards the outer space (0.5831 s) with the ability of CO2 (0.0049 s), I can affirm that the role of CO2 on warming the atmosphere or the surface is not possible according to Physics Laws.

The water vapor is five times more efficient on intercepting quantum/waves than the carbon dioxide. Therefore, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere works like a coolant of the atmospheric water vapor.

By considering also that the carbon dioxide has by far a lower total emissivity than the water vapor I conclude that the carbon dioxide has not an effect on climate changes or warming periods on the Earth.

The low thermal diffusivity of carbon dioxide makes of it to be an inefficient substance to adjust its temperature to the temperature of its surroundings. Consequently, the carbon dioxide can never reach the thermal equilibrium with respect to the remainder molecules of the air.

Two "must sees" if not seen before:

BOvCCTEfypk

FfHW7KR33IQ

Global energy accumulation and net heat emission (http://www.ltu.se/cms_fs/1.5035!/nordell-gervet%20ijgw.pdf)

http://www.solen.info/solar/cyclcomp1.gif (http://www.solen.info/solar/cyclcomp.html)

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/erbe/components2.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget)

DarrinS

08-30-2011, 03:36 PM

A few things of interest, pics have links attached:

Lawrence Solomon: Science getting settled (http://ep.probeinternational.org/2011/08/27/lawrence-solomon-science-now-settled/#more-8216); (August 27, 2011)

Interesting. I wonder if the guys at CERN are pseudoscientists who lack critical thinking skills? We'll have to consult the all-knowing RandomGuy for the answer.

Went to the project's website, http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/ , clicked on the Funding link and .... DAMN IT -- no grant from Exxon-Mobile.:lol

Wild Cobra

08-30-2011, 04:09 PM

L:OL...

How many times have I denied CO2 being the primary driver of warming, and classing it as #3? Sun #1, soot on ice/snow #2.

The other article may prove to be right, taking CO2 off my list!

Agloco

08-30-2011, 11:37 PM

MannyIsGod

08-31-2011, 12:08 AM

http://www.physorg.com/news161268877.html

Thats not what Darrin was referencing.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/

Addresses what Darrin is referencing at CERN. If Darrin possessed critical thinking abilities he might take a look at that data and wonder how that translates to the period in the mid 20th century he always references regarding a lack of warming.

If.

:toast

Wild Cobra

08-31-2011, 02:33 AM

http://www.physorg.com/news161268877.html
To my knowledge, very few "deniers' use the cosmic ray idea. It is believed to have a small impact, but not understood well. I also disagree with using a model to disprove something. A model is no better than how you program it to act.

We know that the solar intensity has increased since the Maunder Minimum to present day. The only dispute is by how much. Proxy data isn't known for high accuracy.

Some people will shut out the cosmic ray idea without the open mindedness it may have some merit, I call them the deniers.

RandomGuy

08-31-2011, 10:18 AM

Actually, it fits the AGW movement.

There are no solid numbers and the noise range is too often in the 5% range. They cobble data together that fits to their agenda.

They claim to use science, without sound scientific methodology.

If you ever read the material in the Rocket Scientist Journal (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/), he points out fallacies that the AGW crowd relies on.

Uh-huh.

A guy that posts what? 2 critiques in the last three years of a body of climate science with dozens of papers every year?

I would point out that what he pointed out was not "fallacies", but attempts to clarify data.

The things you, and especially Darrin, post are quite often straight up logical fallacies.

There is a slight difference.

I am sure he can bring up some fairly good points when it comes to the science, its just that I don't think he has cleared the bar when it comes to successfully refuting a rather large body of evidence, when his reviews for the most part, are of material that is almost a decade or more old.

This level of "proof" is only really comparable, in my view, to the level of "science" that is trumpeted as "irrefutable" proof of the "fallacies" of the "official view" of 9-11.

You do understand what a logical fallacy is, right?

RandomGuy

08-31-2011, 10:23 AM

Interesting. I wonder if the guys at CERN are pseudoscientists who lack critical thinking skills? We'll have to consult the all-knowing RandomGuy for the answer.

Went to the project's website, http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/ , clicked on the Funding link and .... DAMN IT -- no grant from Exxon-Mobile.:lol

http://spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=219&pictureid=1639

The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC, and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating.

Does this sound like an objective, unbiased view of the science presented Darrin?

DarrinS

08-31-2011, 12:22 PM

http://www.physorg.com/news161268877.html

Hmmm. Another computer model.

"Until now, proponents of this hypothesis could assert that the sun may be causing global warming because no one had a computer model to really test the claims," said Adams, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon.

Empirical >>>>>>>> model

Agloco

08-31-2011, 02:41 PM

Determination of Mean Free Path of Quantum/Waves and Total Emissivity of the Carbon Dioxide Considering the Molecular Cross Section. (http://www.biocab.org/Mean_Free_Path_Length_Photons.html)

This article was updated on April 8, 2011. This article has been Peer Reviewed by the Faculty of Physics of the University of Nuevo Leon, Mexico.

Does this work appear in a peer reviewed journal perhaps?

Agloco

08-31-2011, 02:48 PM

To my knowledge, very few "deniers' use the cosmic ray idea. It is believed to have a small impact, but not understood well. I also disagree with using a model to disprove something. A model is no better than how you program it to act.We know that the solar intensity has increased since the Maunder Minimum to present day. The only dispute is by how much. Proxy data isn't known for high accuracy.

Some people will shut out the cosmic ray idea without the open mindedness it may have some merit, I call them the deniers.

Hmmm. Another computer model.

Empirical >>>>>>>> model

I'll tell you what. Your challenge is to actually read said article and tell me what might be wrong with A) the model and B) the assumptions.

Are there any gross errors or assumptions which would lead one to erroneous results with this? If so what are they? What parameters could be improved?

In other words, don't hide behind the empirical > model bush. I want you to think. I know it's painful, but try.

Agloco

08-31-2011, 02:49 PM

Thats not what Darrin was referencing.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/

Addresses what Darrin is referencing at CERN. If Darrin possessed critical thinking abilities he might take a look at that data and wonder how that translates to the period in the mid 20th century he always references regarding a lack of warming.

If.

:toast

Yeah I saw that. Just throwing in a wrinkle.

MannyIsGod

08-31-2011, 02:53 PM

Hmmm. Another computer model.

Empirical >>>>>>>> model

Um, where's the empirical evidence that you speak of? I'd love to see it?

RandomGuy

08-31-2011, 02:53 PM

Hmmm. Another computer model.

Empirical >>>>>>>> model

The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC, and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating.

Does this sound like an objective, unbiased view of the science presented Darrin?

MannyIsGod

08-31-2011, 02:55 PM

The best part is the author of the CERN study himself says you can't conclude anything because of his experiment. Apparently that hasn't stopped people like Darrin from doing just that. :lol

Wild Cobra

08-31-2011, 04:12 PM

Wild Cobra

08-31-2011, 04:14 PM

The best part is the author of the CERN study himself says you can't conclude anything because of his experiment. Apparently that hasn't stopped people like Darrin from doing just that. :lol
But the stupidity is among those AGW proponents who claim the science is settled.

DarrinS

08-31-2011, 06:00 PM

I'll tell you what. Your challenge is to actually read said article and tell me what might be wrong with A) the model and B) the assumptions.

Are there any gross errors or assumptions which would lead one to erroneous results with this? If so what are they? What parameters could be improved?

In other words, don't hide behind the empirical > model bush. I want you to think. I know it's painful, but try.

Sorry, I was just bering an ass. If I had a link to their paper, I might be able to answer those questions. I just think, in general, there is too much computer modeling being offered up as experimentation. IMHO, there has to be some form of measurement to count as an experiment.

While searching that website you linked, I stumbled upon this (another computer model).

Model shows polar ice caps can recover from warmer climate-induced melting

A growing body of recent research indicates that, in Earth's warming climate, there is no "tipping point," or threshold warm temperature, beyond which polar sea ice cannot recover if temperatures come back down. New University of Washington research indicates that even if Earth warmed enough to melt all polar sea ice, the ice could recover if the planet cooled again.

In recent years scientists have closely monitored the shrinking area of the Arctic covered by sea ice in warmer summer months, a development that has created new shipping lanes but also raised concerns about humans living in the region and the survival of species such as polar bears. (it's always the polar bears -- lol)

In the new research, scientists used one of two computer-generated global climate models that accurately reflect the rate of sea-ice loss under current climate conditions, a model so sensitive to warming that it projects the complete loss of September Arctic sea ice by the middle of this century.

However, the model takes several more centuries of warming to completely lose winter sea ice, and doing so required carbon dioxide levels to be gradually raised to a level nearly nine times greater than today. When the model's carbon dioxide levels then were gradually reduced, temperatures slowly came down and the sea ice eventually returned.

"We expected the sea ice to be completely gone in winter at four times the current level of carbon dioxide but we had to raise it by more than eight times," said Cecilia Bitz, a UW associate professor of atmospheric sciences.

"All that carbon dioxide made a very, very warm planet. It was about 6 degrees Celsius (11 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than it is now, which caused the Arctic to be completely free of sea ice in winter."

Bitz and members of her research group are co-authors of a paper about the research that is to be published in Geophysical Research Letters. The lead author is Kyle Armour, a UW graduate student in physics, and other co-authors are Edward Blanchard-Wrigglesworth and Kelly McCusker, UW graduate students in atmospheric sciences, and Ian Eisenman, a postdoctoral researcher from the California Institute of Technology and UW.

In the model, the scientists raised atmospheric carbon dioxide 1 percent each year, which resulted in doubling the levels of the greenhouse gas about every 70 years. The model began with an atmospheric carbon dioxide level of 355 parts per million (in July the actual figure stood at 392 ppm).

In that scenario, it took about 230 years to reach temperatures at which the Earth was free of sea ice during winter. At that point, atmospheric carbon dioxide was greater than 3,100 parts per million.

Then the model's carbon dioxide level was reduced at a rate of 1 percent a year until, eventually, temperatures retreated to closer to today's levels. Bitz noted that the team's carbon dioxide-reduction scenario would require more than just a reduction in emissions that could be achieved by placing limits on the burning of fossil fuels. The carbon dioxide would have to be drawn out of the atmosphere, either naturally or mechanically.

"It is really hard to turn carbon dioxide down in reality like we did in the model. It's just an exercise, but it's a useful one to explore the physics of the system."

While the lack of a "tipping point" could be considered good news, she said, the increasing greenhouse gases leave plenty of room for concern.

"Climate change doesn't have to exhibit exotic phenomena to be dangerous," Bitz said, adding that while sea ice loss can have some positive effects, it is proving harmful to species such as polar bears that live on the ice and to some people who have been forced to relocate entire villages.

"The sea ice cover will continue to shrink so long as the Earth continues to warm," she said. "We don't have to hypothesize dramatic phenomena such as tipping points for this situation to become challenging."

DarrinS

08-31-2011, 06:33 PM

Man, what kind of "crazed" denier, pseudoscience website is that?

Climate researchers: Russian heat wave was natural
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-climate-russian-natural.html

If greenhouse gas emissions stopped now, Earth still would likely get warmer: study
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-climate-russian-natural.html

MannyIsGod

08-31-2011, 06:46 PM

Don't know about the website but that is an ap article that agrees with agw. :tu Did you read it? Do you agree with it?

DarrinS

08-31-2011, 06:54 PM

Don't know about the website but that is an ap article that agrees with agw. :tu Did you read it? Do you agree with it?

Every living creature on earth affects climate to some degree.

What I disagree with is catastrophic warming caused primarily by CO2 (see Gore's movie). This is what I'm a "denier" of.

MannyIsGod

08-31-2011, 07:10 PM

Catastrophic is a subjective term. How many degrees do you think the planet will warm over the next century? What kind of an effect will that have on the planet and humans as a whole? What percentage of that is caused by GHG? How much of an economic and human impact will this have? What time of an environmental and ecological impact will that have?

Catastrophic is a word that doesn't address any of those questions.

DarrinS

08-31-2011, 07:41 PM

RandomGuy

09-01-2011, 07:02 AM

RandomGuy

09-01-2011, 07:04 AM

al gore's "carbon causes global warming" theory is about as real as manbearpig. the motherfucker wants you to pay him a carbon tax.

DING DING DING DING.

You didn't read the OP did you? Welcome to the scoreboard.

The entire OP essentially states:
"Although there is genuine scientific debate surrounding the overall theory of global warming, there is a large amount of pseudoscience, bad science, and general illogical thinking within the part of the population that doubts the theory."

I have then gone on to make my case by pointing out, as clearly as possible, as many instances of exactly that within the thread.

You have scored your first illogical statement, adding to the evidence in support of my assertion. The global warming "denialism" movement shares much in common with creationists and 9-11 conspiracy theorists.

This is what is what is known as a strawman logical fallacy, in which the real position of someone is distorted (Al Gore thinks that a carbon tax is a good idea) to something else (Al Gore "wants you to pay him a carbon tax"), in order to "defeat" a position by mocking it.

It could also be argued that this was a simple ad hominem fallacy.

Here is a list, perhaps you could clarify which logical fallacy you were shooting for:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

RandomGuy

09-01-2011, 07:47 AM

How many degrees do you think the planet will warm over the next century?

Answers:

1 degree +- 2

We will certainly have a good answer within the next 20 years to begin to see if you are right about that.

If the global warming theory is as weak as you and others assert it to be, some motivated scientist will get around to finding the evidence against it.

The IPCC for its part:
www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

Projects that the most likely affect of all the GHG we are emitting will have the most likely cumulative effect of adding about 1.35F within the next twenty years.

Since we are living in the test tube, we will get to see whose guess works out.

Science aside, we will be far better off economically concentrating on low CO2 intensive sources of power anyway, so I think the argument over the science is almost irrelevant at this point, but if it makes you happy to quibble over the "evil greedy scientists making things up to line their pockets", be my guest to keep at the ad hominem. It makes my point.

RandomGuy

09-01-2011, 07:51 AM

The sun accounts for well over 99.99% of the earth's atmospheric heat. The geothermal and tidal forces are almost meaningless.

Find any climate scientist who says otherwise.

The AGW theory says this rather explicitly actually. The only way you differ with them is how much of that heat is retained.

Why do you bring this up if everybody agrees on it?

DarrinS

09-01-2011, 09:02 AM

You keep ignoring this question. Why is that?

Since you have not displayed the intellectual honesty to actually answer the question, we can only assume the answer is not one that supports your argument:

I don't need to answer a question about "bias", especially considering the dumbass title of this thread. I honestly don't even know what the phrase "climate change denial" means. It is not a black and white issue. If you read a lot of research on this topic (which I have), you end up discovering that there is a wide spectrum of beliefs about (1) what is causing the warming (2) whether the 20th century warming (hasn't been any 21st century warming) is "unprecedented" based on historical data, (3) the magnitude of effects on the environment and whether those effects are mostly positive or negative, and (4) what actions, if any, are needed to ameliorate those effects (if applicable).

No, the article you linked was not an objective, unbiased view of the science presented.

And if YOU'RE being honest, you would know that I didn't post the link -- only quoted it from WC.

Agloco

09-01-2011, 10:34 AM

Sorry, I was just bering an ass. If I had a link to their paper, I might be able to answer those questions. I just think, in general, there is too much computer modeling being offered up as experimentation. IMHO, there has to be some form of measurement to count as an experiment.

You're absolutely correct. They're a start point to test a hypothesis though.....which is why I linked a computer model to get the ball rolling for you.

What this should do Darrin is get your gears cranking/thinking in terms of what variables can and cannot be controlled, and what parameters are or are not relevant to the matter, etc.

If you're honest (and if the model parameters are as well) then it should elucidate what can and cannot fly empirically. This is why I ask you to read it and think it out. You do need a bit of knowledge here, but not much. Many time, common sense will steer you in the right direction.

In English: these models will allow you to better discern what experimental studies are horseshit and which ones aren't.

Again, they aren't proof but they do hone one's conceptual understanding of the subject.

While searching that website you linked, I stumbled upon this (another computer model).

Now you're doing some work. Good. Let's see what they have to say.....

Model shows polar ice caps can recover from warmer climate-induced melting

A growing body of recent research indicates that, in Earth's warming climate, there is no "tipping point," or threshold warm temperature, beyond which polar sea ice cannot recover if temperatures come back down. New University of Washington research indicates that even if Earth warmed enough to melt all polar sea ice, the ice could recover if the planet cooled again.In recent years scientists have closely monitored the shrinking area of the Arctic covered by sea ice in warmer summer months, a development that has created new shipping lanes but also raised concerns about humans living in the region and the survival of species such as polar bears. (it's always the polar bears -- lol)

In the new research, scientists used one of two computer-generated global climate models that accurately reflect the rate of sea-ice loss under current climate conditions, a model so sensitive to warming that it projects the complete loss of September Arctic sea ice by the middle of this century.

However, the model takes several more centuries of warming to completely lose winter sea ice, and doing so required carbon dioxide levels to be gradually raised to a level nearly nine times greater than today. When the model's carbon dioxide levels then were gradually reduced, temperatures slowly came down and the sea ice eventually returned."We expected the sea ice to be completely gone in winter at four times the current level of carbon dioxide but we had to raise it by more than eight times," said Cecilia Bitz, a UW associate professor of atmospheric sciences.

"All that carbon dioxide made a very, very warm planet. It was about 6 degrees Celsius (11 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than it is now, which caused the Arctic to be completely free of sea ice in winter."

Bitz and members of her research group are co-authors of a paper about the research that is to be published in Geophysical Research Letters. The lead author is Kyle Armour, a UW graduate student in physics, and other co-authors are Edward Blanchard-Wrigglesworth and Kelly McCusker, UW graduate students in atmospheric sciences, and Ian Eisenman, a postdoctoral researcher from the California Institute of Technology and UW.

In the model, the scientists raised atmospheric carbon dioxide 1 percent each year, which resulted in doubling the levels of the greenhouse gas about every 70 years. The model began with an atmospheric carbon dioxide level of 355 parts per million (in July the actual figure stood at 392 ppm).

In that scenario, it took about 230 years to reach temperatures at which the Earth was free of sea ice during winter. At that point, atmospheric carbon dioxide was greater than 3,100 parts per million.

Then the model's carbon dioxide level was reduced at a rate of 1 percent a year until, eventually, temperatures retreated to closer to today's levels. Bitz noted that the team's carbon dioxide-reduction scenario would require more than just a reduction in emissions that could be achieved by placing limits on the burning of fossil fuels. The carbon dioxide would have to be drawn out of the atmosphere, either naturally or mechanically.

"It is really hard to turn carbon dioxide down in reality like we did in the model. It's just an exercise, but it's a useful one to explore the physics of the system."

While the lack of a "tipping point" could be considered good news, she said, the increasing greenhouse gases leave plenty of room for concern.

"Climate change doesn't have to exhibit exotic phenomena to be dangerous," Bitz said, adding that while sea ice loss can have some positive effects, it is proving harmful to species such as polar bears that live on the ice and to some people who have been forced to relocate entire villages.

"The sea ice cover will continue to shrink so long as the Earth continues to warm," she said. "We don't have to hypothesize dramatic phenomena such as tipping points for this situation to become challenging."

An interesting article. So now you should ask yourself a few things about the colored passages. Heck maybe even change a few things about the model in your mind to see if they jive with observations (green):

Red - How much does it need to cool in order for a recovery to take place? What does "close to todays levels" mean? What is close? Is it valid?

Green - We know that the oceans are a large carbon sink. What effect (if any) does increased CO2 this have on A) it's pH and B) overall thermal diffusivity? Understand that as oceanic pH shifts to being more acidic, the chemical balance pushes towards carbonic acid and dissovled CO2. This is analogous to being metabolically acidotic (look up solubility pump). I bring this up because I'm curoius to know how you would reconcile that with this article below:

Determination of Mean Free Path of Quantum/Waves and Total Emissivity of the Carbon Dioxide Considering the Molecular Cross Section. (http://www.biocab.org/Mean_Free_Path_Length_Photons.html)

Conclusions

The results obtained by experimentation coincide with the results obtained by applying astrophysics formulas. Therefore, both methodologies are reliable to calculate the total emissivity/absorptivity of any gas of any planetary atmosphere.

At an average density, the atmospheric water vapor allows quantum/waves to cross the troposphere to the tropopause in 0.0245 s, i.e. 2.45 cs (centiseconds). By comparing the ability of water vapor to avoid that quantum/waves escape towards the outer space (0.5831 s) with the ability of CO2 (0.0049 s), I can affirm that the role of CO2 on warming the atmosphere or the surface is not possible according to Physics Laws.

The water vapor is five times more efficient on intercepting quantum/waves than the carbon dioxide. Therefore, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere works like a coolant of the atmospheric water vapor.

By considering also that the carbon dioxide has by far a lower total emissivity than the water vapor I conclude that the carbon dioxide has not an effect on climate changes or warming periods on the Earth.

The low thermal diffusivity of carbon dioxide makes of it to be an inefficient substance to adjust its temperature to the temperature of its surroundings. Consequently, the carbon dioxide can never reach the thermal equilibrium with respect to the remainder molecules of the air.

You and WC are pushing this agenda so lets discuss a bit:

How about in water? Is the Thomson cross section still relevant here? Was it appropriate to begin with? What do you think Darrin? Does this model take into account the possibility that CO2 is a coolant? I think you can answer that.

If not, what if it did? What sort of effect would that have on the model then? The would the caps ever melt? Would they begin progressing?

Is that consistent with that's being reported today? What would that say about the models validity then?

Just some things to consider. For my part, I don't claim to know the finer points of how those models work. I'm simply telling you how my thought processes would work here.

PS - There are other points in this article which you could dissect as well.

MannyIsGod

09-01-2011, 10:38 AM

Answers:

1 degree +- 2

3 degrees is a pretty damn big increase.

Not much.

Don't know, nor does anyone else.

Not much.

More plants?

What empirical observations do you base these hypothesis off of? As for contribution of GHG, you're just flat out wrong here. Obviously there's a level of precision that we lack here but that doesn't make your answer anything short of wrong.

MannyIsGod

09-01-2011, 10:47 AM

The idea that you'd need to see an incredible increase in global temp to rid the arctic of sea ice completely through the annual cycle should be pretty damn obvious, to be perfectly honest. We have a large area of ice even in the summer at the moment so of course there is even more in the Winter.

Now, that being said, that actually brings me to the current state of the sea ice. We're going to at least set the 2nd lowest extent behind 2007 and there is at least a decent chance that we will actually set a level below 2007. There has been some dramatic days of melt this season and this week has seen some of the most dramatic late season melt ever seen.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

While specific causes for melt can be attributed to various large scale climate patterns not directly related to AGW the magnitude of the melt and decreasing annual winter levels are a definite indicator of more energy being in the system.

Borat Sagyidev

09-01-2011, 11:12 AM

Just when you think it can't get any dumber. A conservative fuckface opens their mouth.

Are you guys really trying to say that the double of C02 gas in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution has no effect? These strawman arguments are meaningless.

Is the greenhouse effect and Co2 as a greenhouse gas, just a theory too?
SeYfl45X1wo

Agloco

09-01-2011, 12:29 PM

Determination of Mean Free Path of Quantum/Waves and Total Emissivity of the Carbon Dioxide Considering the Molecular Cross Section. (http://www.biocab.org/Mean_Free_Path_Length_Photons.html)

I haven't really had the opportunity to pull apart one of these articles yet but I finally got a moment to look at this one. It seems that this requires a bit of explanation. I'll try to keep it as simple as possible:

The results obtained by experimentation coincide with the results obtained by applying astrophysics formulas. Therefore, both methodologies are reliable to calculate the total emissivity/absorptivity of any gas of any planetary atmosphere.

:tu Agree, mostly. We need to be clear on the mechanisms involved, and more importantly where they occur. The author assumes a perfectly elastic scattering situation and uses Thomson cross sections in his analysis (twice):

http://www.biocab.org/Temperature_of_Venus.pdf

Is that a valid asumption? Stay tuned......

At an average density, the atmospheric water vapor allows quantum/waves to cross the troposphere to the tropopause in 0.0245 s, i.e. 2.45 cs (centiseconds). By comparing the ability of water vapor to avoid that quantum/waves escape towards the outer space (0.5831 s) with the ability of CO2 (0.0049 s), I can affirm that the role of CO2 on warming the atmosphere or the surface is not possible according to Physics Laws.

Ok. What this tells me as a physicist is that EM waves escape a CO2 environment more readily than they do a water vapor environment. Nothing more, nothing less. As I implied above, one cannot infer a relationship to energy loss. Why? See my next point.

The low thermal diffusivity of carbon dioxide makes of it to be an inefficient substance to adjust its temperature to the temperature of its surroundings. Consequently, the carbon dioxide can never reach the thermal equilibrium with respect to the remainder molecules of the air.

Here the author implies that CO2 acts much as a reflector does, simply "bouncing" EM waves off of itself if you will. That is correct. However, here we need some deeper (well not so deep, just more....) physics though.

If anyone has taken optics (or even astrophysics), they might remember an "obscure" but important law which states that scatter and optical depth are functions of a photons wavelength. Look up optical depth before continuing........

So we know that CO2 emits radiation at or longer than the wavelength of incident photons. This is a continuous process for which, as I stated above, the proportion of absorbed radiation is constantly changing. One would need a time/energy/direction integrated function to adequately describe this.

Now we must look at the defiition of elastic scattering:

In this process, the kinetic energy of the incident particles is conserved, only their direction of propagation is modified (by interaction with other particles and/or a potential).

What does that mean for the wavelength? By describing the photoelectric effect and through DeBroglies work we know that energy is inversely related to wavelength. Basic stuff right? So if CO2 emits wavelengths longer than those which are incident, where did the kinetic energy go?

By definition we no longer have perfectly elastic conditions (it's now inelastic), and the validity of using such assumptions must be called into question.

What I did here: Call into question the use of a perfectly elastic situation. The cross sections are based on this assumption. They may in fact be drastically different.

What I did NOT do here is:

1) Debunk the hypothesis that CO2 could be cooling the atmosphere. There are other papers which suggest this as well, and they use different methodologies to arrive at said conclusion. I'll leave that proof to one of you folks, I just dont have that sort of time.

2) Quantify the contribution of the "missing energy" to atmospheric warming. It may well be negligible. Again, I dont have the time but can offer a suggestion:

What you would need to do is compute the total energy emitted by a volume element for a difference in wavelengths choosing a consistent cutoff for emission coefficients. Since we have a situation known as Raman scattering and I believe this to be a more appropriate assumption upon which to base a cross section. So one could perform this calculation for Thomson scattering, then again for Raman scattering. The difference should give you your "missing energy" as Raman accounts for inelastic processes.

Note: Here I neglect the contribution of Compton and Brilouin Scattering. Compton involves interaction with outer orbital electrons specifically.....too specific to be significant IMO (dunno though, check for yourselves). Brilouin Scatter however might be significant as it is dependent on temperature gradients, the concept of which lies at the heart of this debate.

If anything, I'd look at the potential contribution of Brilouin scatter to the energy pie.

So that leaves us with the question of "where" the missing energy goes. Thermal energy? Perhaps, but as the author notes CO2 has a low thermal diffusivity. The fraction is small here.

Perhaps it's taken up by water vapor lower in the atmosphere is it's "bounced" off of CO2?

Even if this is so, the author makes a case for CO2 being a coolant and a driver for warming all at once. Not a warmer through the absorption of thermal energy mind you, but a warmer through it's reflecive properties. The random orientation of CO2 molecules will mean that reflection is mostly isotropic (even in all directions) regardless of the polarity emission coefficients of the reflected waves.

Is it the primary driver of heating though? <shrug> There are many more factors at play here. It's a multivariate issue.....where do certain evaporative/condensation effects take place? They affect heat transfer as well, etc.

Hopefully this explanation does not oversimplify things.

DISCLAIMER: I'm on my third glass of Grand Marnier. Apologies for any omissions.

MannyIsGod

09-01-2011, 01:10 PM

http://cdn.greenoptions.com/b/bc/bcb92953_Greenhouse_Spectrum.gif

http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

I'm not too sure that energy is missing.

Agloco

09-01-2011, 01:27 PM

http://cdn.greenoptions.com/b/bc/bcb92953_Greenhouse_Spectrum.gif

http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

I'm not too sure that energy is missing.

Ya. It's obviously there and causing heating of one sort or another. The author missed out on a chance to account for it an quantify it in his paper though.

MannyIsGod

09-01-2011, 01:44 PM

Whats puzzling to me is the argument that water vapor has stronger greenhouse properties than CO2 so therefor CO2 isn't causing warming. Water vapor is indeed a stronger green house gas but its presence in the atmosphere is directly related to the temp. 80 degree air will hold a certain amount of water vapor and then no more. CO2 concentrations, however, can be ever increased.

There's a reason WV is the primary feedback mechanism.

MannyIsGod

09-01-2011, 01:46 PM

Ya. It's obviously there and causing heating of one sort or another. The author missed out on a chance to account for it an quantify it in his paper though.

Quantified!

http://sites.google.com/site/coelhomota/RadiationBudget.pdf?attredirects=0

Agloco

09-01-2011, 01:48 PM

My point is by using their model, I can show an error in their assumptions.

Then do so. I've asked the same of Darrin as well.

I don't like relying on models for complex systems. If the AGW crowd would actually address the simpler heat sources and account for them, I might give them more respect than I do.

Neither do I, but sometimes there's an element of practicality that one is confronted with. That is definiely the case when attempting to quantify processes on a global scale no?

By no means are models gospel truth WC, we know this. But you shouldn't dismiss them out of hand either.......especially before you've considered it's merits (see your first comment above).

My point is by using their model, I can show an error in their assumptions.

I don't like relying on models for complex systems. If the AGW crowd would actually address the simpler heat sources and account for them, I might give them more respect than I do.

What about the more complex stuff?

The simplified model I presented is a simpler version than the one in the PDF I linked. Other studies use percentages.

Why is it so difficult to address the multiplier of 1.0018 from 1750 to modern times across the model? The sun accounts for well over 99.99% of the earth's atmospheric heat. The geothermal and tidal forces are almost meaningless. Any field I ever looked at, feedback changes with the supplied source. The sun is the source and the greenhouse gasses supply positive feedback.

Have you contacted a climatologist in one of those AGW papers to find out? They're usually just an E-Mail away. I'd be interested in what feedback you get from them. My guess? It will be something along the lines of what I told you above.