Reply With Quote
Here's a mathmatical representation of solar activity that fits past events, going into the future:
Where are all the sunspots?
Still no sunspots... Wow... We are going to cool...22 Mar 09 – (From Spaceweather.com) “As of March 21st, the sun has been blank on 85% of the days of 2009. If this rate of spotlessness continues, 2009 will match 1913 as the blankest year of the past century. A flurry of new-cycle sunspots in Oct. 2008 prompted some observers to declare that solar minimum was ending, but since then the calm has returned. We are still in the pits of a deep solar minimum.”
Here's a mathmatical representation of solar activity that fits past events, going into the future:
What percentage of that 30,000 actually study climate for a living?
Were you going to mention that part of that number includes dietary scientists?
More intellectual honesty FAIL.
The 9-11 truthers can produce a pe ion as well that "challenges conventionally held science." Color me unconvinced.
bumpity bump bump
Fair.
Better:
Intellectual honesty check:Henry's law is all a person needs to understand to point out serious potential discrepancies in [the alarmists] claims.
Is the cycle of CO2 exchange cycle between the atmosphere and the oceans more complex than a simple Henry's law calculation of gas diffusion?
What variables could confound such an analysis?
Where the methods as accurate in 1812 as they were in 1961?
Where the same people carrying out the measurements the entire time? Did the methods vary slightly between recorded series from person to person?
What possible confounding variables might distort the measurement data?
I see the number 90,000 direct measurment used. What number of samples were there in each year? Were there enough samples in any given year to provide an accurate sample for that year?
Simple critical thinking questions, honestly and fairly posed.
Do we know more about measuring atmospheric CO2 now than we did in 1961? In 1812?
That wasn't a peer-reviewed article.
More honesty FAIL.
You and the 9-11 truth movement seem to be fond of quoting scienc-y sounding papers from non-peer reviewed "journals".
The fact that a cursory reading my a layman can lay bare so many valid questions concerning the rigor of the science presented that "debunks" AGW is enough for me to not assign it much weight.
If you think that you have demonstrated intellectual honesty, then you should have no problem fairly answering honest questions about the science you present. I have asked several such questions, and await your response.Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Do you really think that you have demonstrated sufficient intellectual honesty for any but the most naive or sympathetic to do that?
I don't have long before I have to leave for a luch date, but I will try to address these.
Do you like asking the same questions that I have answered in the past?
It doesn't matter. They all had BS (Bachelor of Science) degrees or better. A BS in climatology only requires one more class past being a meteorologist.
How accurate are meteorologists?
What matters is combining the results and studies of all the geosciences. Not just climatology.
What's wrong with that? Ever see the class requirements for such a complex field of study? Still, it's a BS degree, right?
No. You are just brainwashed and cannot think outside the box.
Would they have 30,000+ scientists with BS degrees or higher?
Absolutely
Many, including the moon.
You miss the point. Am I not explaining it well?
The equilibrium is in excess of 30:1 by any model developed by any scientist. It is out of equilibrium because it is not sinking 30:1.
No. If you read the material I linked, they used two types of methods. The ration metond went through advancements in accuracy. However, even the methods used starting at 1812 had a +/- 3% accuracy.
If I recall, there were 8 to 10 people doing it over that time span, and many of them had overlapping periods. Go here for a relatively simple history and explaination.
I cannot think of any outside of carelessness. I guess someone cold have breathed on their own sample. Still, we are talking about 90,000+ data points. Sure, some could be in error, and any good scientist will throw out the outliers.
Samples were taken from multiple locations, I think daily for most of them.
We have better methods, but 3% is good enough of an accuracy.
Bull . Peer review is often abused and is meaningless today, especially in a field that is a political and professional hotcake.
You are stuck in the box of peer review and consensus. You really should learn more about the sciences.
Without an understanding of the sciences yourself, you will never be satisfied.
9-11 truthers, meet your spiritual and intellectual soulmate, Wild Weasel. Wild Weasel, meet your spir ual and intellectual soulmates in the 9-11 movement.
Peer review is when very important things, like a minimal sufficiency of evidence is sought, and honest critical thinking is done.
I know enough about science, and enough about sufficiency of evidence to support claims to know when someone is trying to baffle me with bull .
My bull alarm goes off a lot when I read your posts, and given that I don't feel you have really demonstrated much intellectual honesty, I will remain rather skeptical of your claims about what "the evidence" says.
I saw a few honest attempts at answering questions in the rest of the post, so by all means, please change my mind about that by continuing to attempt fair responses. Thank you.
On the one hand, we have a bunch of links to websites that look like the ones which tell us that Uncle Sam has been hiding extraterresterial life for the last 60 years. On the other, we have the video Poindexter made at his mom's and uploaded on YouTube.
Somehow I don't believe the truth is going to be found in this part of the internets, but continue on.
Having published several papers myself, I can say that there is some truth to what WC is saying. Let's say you are asked to be a reviewer for papers presented at some conference. Some reviewers take their role very seriously and do a good job. Others may just skim the material and write up a favorable review for a friend or write an overly critical review for someone they disagree with or dislike. I've seen both sides.
And your 9-11 truther comment is a funny because all that "peer reviewed" means is that something was reviewed by your peers. I'm sure there are peer-reviewed twoofer papers out there somewhere. It doesn't really add validity one way or the other to the papers themselves.
On the 30000 pe ion:
The opinions of health professionals, engineers, biologists, and people with degrees in "general science" are totally irrelevant in the global warming discussion. The fact that they don't see it that way doesn't mean anything. As a 4th year physics student, I have a much better understanding of the science involved than any of those, yet I am honest enough to admit that my opinion is meaningless. I don't know about chemists, but I would definitely rule most physicists out, geophysicist being the only exception, and not by much.
Then come the mathematicians and computer scientists. The "maths and computer modeling are important in the AGW theory" is not a very solid argument, unless you want to center the discussion on the computing algorithms used for modeling. But that is not the case.
So we are left with only 300 climatologist. They might have a very good understanding of the basics, but how many specialize in global temperature trends? Science is not what was 300 year ago, there is a tremendous amount of specialization today. Cardiologists don't cure cancer, oncologists don't go replacing people's hearts. So the relevant opinions all over the world are most probably under 100.
On to the paper by Georg Ernst Beck:
The alleged 3% relative error is accepted, I think. But even perfect measurements in urban areas, where most of the results came from, are not representative of worldwide CO2 level, only of very local values which are heavily dependent on local CO2 sources. Even those taken in rural locations have to be carefully examined, as the time of day and local vegetation will cause important variations. You don't need all the measurement locations to experience an increase, if a significant fraction of them are on bad locations, the fact that the measurements taken in good ones give steady, low results, would be concealed in the average value.
The fact that there is a 3% uncertainty on the individual measurement doesn't say a word about the uncertainty of the average, which in entirely dependent on the dispersion of the results. It could be pretty big. I won't go as far as saying that this is the case, because I can't say so without reading all the quoted papers, but Ernst Beck has not done much to cast out my doubts, and that is really lame.
Even if you agree with the measurement methods, there are important seasonal variations. In order to perform an average, his results must be geneously distributed in time, otherwise he might end up giving, let's say, summer results a bigger share than they are due. Again, Beck has done nothing to cast out that doubt.
His paper is pure idiocy. I mean, everybody can read some old books, copy some numbers, and come up with an average. He has not presented his results in a way that can be defended from criticism. He had 10 pages to do so, and could have settled some major doubts with a single table, consigning mean, maximum and minimum values of relevant parameters, such as sampling rates. Or how about the standard deviation of yearly averages? But no, he didn't, he merely points the reader to search in the references. Which means that in order to accept his results we would have to go through 138 papers. No thanks.
This papers wouldn't have survived the most lazy unbiased peer-review. Only a tremendous bias can get this things published as they are.
For last I am leaving the most important thing: How come the crazy atmospheric CO2 values swinging come to a full stop with new measurements methods? It would seem that planet earth is deliberately trying to confuse us. It really really REALLY makes me doubt his average criteria. Had the results been consistent with modern ones, you can give the guy the benefit of the doubt. But considering he is showing a radically different trend, if he wants to dismiss the idea of crappy criteria, he should have at least hinted at a possible explanation. He can't so all he does is accuse other scientists of cherry picking their results. That's not science, that's politics.
Bogus paper, enough said.
Isn't global warming just based on basically a million scenarios and predictions?
Have you looked at the course requirements of getting any BS degree, then the added courses to get the specific BS? So much relevant science information is learned in any science field. Again, a BS in Climatology only requires one more course than that of a Meteorology degree. They cannot accurately predidct the weather, and you expect anyone to trust them?
I would say chemistry is one of the more important disciplines to learn. Chemistry is far more a part of medical and biological studies than it is meteorology or climatology.
I am not arguing that the modeling is as important as the alarmists are. A model is no better than the data you compile it with. My primary problem with AGW models is that they start with the premise that CO2 drives the changes, so they make the model fit that scenario. My argument with the carbon cycle model is not in any way to say it's accurate other than all models have the approximate 50:1 or better carbon balance.
The numbers don't really matter so mush to ma as does the content of what they say. When those propagating anthropogenic global warming never address easily understood scientific truths, I say they don't count. For both solar changes and soot, they only talk about radiative forcing, or the changes made in the collection of heat in the atmosphere by the blackbody radiation sourced from the surface. The numbvers are naturally small. The conviently ignore, entirely, the direct physical changes of the radiation directly being absorbed by the surface and water. They entirely ignore the fact that the arctic ice is melting faster due to soot, and the changes of reflected radiation vs. absorbed radiation.
Only some data was from urban areas. With wind and quan y of carbon burning, think about the masses involve. Unless you took the measurements in a direct live of travel from a combustion source, the data is pretty accurate.
Yes, it can. Did you go over the linked material at all? Several data points of both location and time were used.
The data points represent five year averages of the data, and data from different locations. Your argument doesn't apply. Modern though on the temperatures are taken from ice core data or from Hawaii, which are one extreme or the other. Sea water is almost always just above freezing, therefore uniform equilibrium. Same with the equatorial waters. They vary little over the seasons and time. Mid la ude waters have a large variability in temperature. Therefore, we have a large swing in equilibrium.
Now I would accept the argument that his data doesn't represent the global CO2. It needs to be averaged with the content at all la udes.
So he left things out you think are important. Looks to me the relevant points are made.
At the time of his work, the data and conclusions were accepted. Nobody has debunked his work with facts, only criticism. I'm pretty sure he had more papers on the subject too.
How do you know? Because it's not in the format your professors demand? That doesn't make it invalid.
For the work to be invalid, the data would need to be invalid. The data is accepted in the scientific community.
Because of where they were taken. I already addressed that. All modern readings you see data from are taken from Mauna Loa, Hawaii. This is near the equator at a location in the ocean that is always sourcing CO2 rather than sinking it. The amount is sources is rather consistent because it already has been sourcing CO2 as the water travels. The short term variations are vented out already. If you look at the site map of the data points, you see they are all mid la ude regions. Places that are at equilibrium near the average temperatures. As the temperatures lower, they sink CO2. As the rise, they source CO2. That is why you see such wide variations. Mauna Loa is always a source. I'm surprised you didn't question why they vary from ice core samples. That's harder to understand, and I only have a hypothesis on that rather than a near certain answer. I would say that has to do with ice core samples having any high variations sourced so much faster into the water before being trapped in the ice. The greater the imbalance from equilibrium, the faster the rate of sinking or sourcing.
I see you go to the University of Indoctrination, and cannot think outside that box they put you in.
Do you really think that different sampling methods at different locations should yield the same results? None of those 90,000+ data points were taken from the antarctic ice, or equatorial areas. Both of those are at temperature extremes that have the more extreme sourcing or sinking, and not both. Those 90,000+ data points were at locations that were near enough water to have relatively fast changes from temperature.
Now before someone says that the persistence of CO2 in the atmosphere is in the hundreds of years, let me put that to rest like I should have before.
Mauna Loa seasonal slope:
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-16-2009 at 10:10 PM.
Bump...
Do these threads die because no one can show me wrong?
As a REAL skeptic, I demand to be convinced.
If anyone can point me to a study that will convince me, beyond doubt, that human CO2 emissions are the primary cause of global warming, er, climate change, I would certainly like to read it.
That bolded statement is absolutely asinine. I don't have a degree in paleoclimatology or any other climate science. Does that mean I don't have the right to point out flawed logic, mathematical mistakes, programming errors, etc?
Ahem -- Al Gore.
It doesn't exist.
With so many people following that religion, I figured at least ONE person would offer up at least ONE study.
I think you're right. I don't think such a study exists.
Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Void. Null.
<crickets>
Nope...but, the Global Climate Changists do have this guy...
What’s your interest in this, Mr Gore?
Mr. Gore gets a bit defensive, don't'cha think?
Be sure and watch both videos...
And, here's a bonus...just because...it's FRIDAY!!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
