Reply With Quote
This never happened.
From several pages back.
Even if it said graph is produced by <insert name of evil "big oil" company here>, the DATA IS THE DATA.
Well I doubt hes talking about posting graphs from mining company think tanks like the Global Warming Policy Foundation and claiming they are from BEST like you did.
This never happened.
From several pages back.
Even if it said graph is produced by <insert name of evil "big oil" company here>, the DATA IS THE DATA.
its not even that remotely and quite frankly a conclusion like that should be made by the individual and not for us. I asked you where the study came from. The graph was compiled using some unknown method by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
BEST describes their data set as
WTF do you think I have been talking about when asking about subsets. Was it all of them? If it was all of them, were they weighted equally? Why or why not etc.The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study has created a preliminary merged data set by combining 1.6 billion temperature reports from 15 preexisting data archives.
How on earth do we know that they did not cherry pick or use arbitrary coefficients?
At the end of the day, that study was not from BEST. Why did you not link the mailer that you got it from?
That's just Manny, misrepresenting things again.
Proven, or claimed?
Peer reviewed disagreement IS NOT PROOF!
Actually, CO2 could be said to be still accelerating, yet temperature isn't.
Thinking back to the OP.
Does this mean that starting to trade carbon credits created a demand for CO2?
Should I have used blue text, or could this be true?
Of course a slowdown is an expected outcome. The first doubling of CO2 has a greater affect than the 2nd doubling and so on. If its not linear either a slow down or an acceleration is expected.
I said I wouldn't respond to you but this is just too good. You posted one of the studies that was wrong which THEY THEMSELVES agreed to being incorrect so what do you think? I guess when they admit they were wrong its not proof either, is it?
Pretty god damn annoying having to read the posts of someone so ignorant they don't even know the they post themselves.
Continue as you were, dumbass.
You're correct here. I was using a factoid from another one of these AGW threads. I cant remember which one offhand. I could have sworn that someone posted a link or graph which showed a non-linear relationship. In fact, I think it supposed a geometric progression. I'm not saying that's the case. I was simply using it as an example in an attempt to clarify the car analogy for Darrin.
For instance as Manny states:
The forcing from CO2 is not linear but the entire system with feed backs is different. IE CO2 forcing raisings the temps in the atmosphere by a X amount but then air with a higher temp is able to retain more water vapor which in turn traps IR radiation of its own and increasing the temp more. However, THAT aspect of the system is up for far more debate because modeling feedbacks is not nearly as sound as modeling CO2's trapping of energy.
I will agree with that feedback scenario somewhat, but can you apply reliable numbers? I think not.
Always the CO2, but the levels which the temperature/sensitivity claims, I will contend are inaccurate and far higher than they should be.
Show me a model that accurately allows for the direct and indirect forcing of solar changes and soot changes, and I'll start listening. The indirect solar forcing is being counted as changes in greenhouse gas forcing by the models I have seen. Tell me. What is left when you properly assign these vales of change.
He just sais the reciprocity in the systems was a subject of debate....
You don't even understand the models you put out yourself. As if anything will short of your preacher telling you what to think is going to change your mind. You have decided who your authority figures are and you follow them like a good little minion.
Hmmm. Sounds like a very complex system that is not completely understood.
duh
LOL...
No .
Wouldn't it help, to understand it's warming effect with the process of elimination of other warming effects?
Why doesn't the AGW crowd ever consider real effects of the changing solar component?
Then why don't we study it more before blasting our economy back into the stone age?
How do we get from here to de-industrialization? It seems to be intuitively clear to you, but is not to me. Can you flesh that out?
Just being petulant and glib?
Thought so, thanks.
Who ever said the system was completely understood? Have they stopped investigating and conducting scientific studies? If you're attempting to say that the inability to account for how the energy behaves perfectly in the system somehow discounts that increasing the entire energy of the system WILL raise the temp then LOL is all I have to say.
This is the most annoying part of discussing this subject with people such as yourself, Darrin. For one, people like you simply toss all kinds of against the wall to see what sticks. Its like a clusterbomb of failed logic all over the place. But whats more irritating, is that when I make a candid observation of the short comings of our knowledge, you try to manipulate what I've said to some type of justification for your complete lack of context and understanding.
Its impossible to completely model what the climate will do with so much energy added into the system to a very fine resolution. As has been noted before, we lack the computing power to even think about modeling clouds in the manner in which they actual form and behave. Many factors are like this. There are definite limitations into what we can predict.
Now, an honest person with an open mind at this point thinks, what do those limitations mean? They don't automatically judge that a limitation means what they want it to mean. We like to call that confirmation bias.
So then, what do the limitations mean? They surely don't mean that the energy will simply magically disappear. What they mean, is that we're limited in showing the effects in specific regions or times to a precise resolution. It also means that scientists can only give you an estimate of what the temperature is going to rise and that estimate will be a range of values. This is precisely what the IPCC has do ented: a scientific range of scenarios (none of which talk about cooling) regarding the future increase in temperature on a global scale.
Furthermore, the talk of taking the economy back to the stone age is ridiculous. It most certainly misses the point that in the future there will be a cost associate with inaction. Instead of talking bout that, you use bull hyperbolic rhetoric. But what more should I expect out of your generation, Darrin? Much as you kick the bill for your time down the road to mine, you're not going to do a damn thing to prevent future economic burdens and simply let us deal with what may come. Its definitely the hallmark of your generation.
Manny,
I concede that I could be entirely wrong on the subject. I just don't think we know enough yet to say that CO2 is THE driver of the increased temps that have been observed. There have been numerous hotter and colder periods in the past and the industrial period conveniently begins after the little ice age. I also think the science has been too politicized and there are too many activists amongst their ranks. I think it is a field worthy of continued research, I just don't think our current state of knowledge justifies drastic action in terms of curbing emmissions. Just my opinion.
We definitely know enough to say CO2 is what is causing temps to rise. Its a known GHG and nothing else known can cause the warming. In order for it not to be CO2, then all that has to be done is to a) provide a different source for the increase in energy and b) explain why the energy that should be trapped by the known behaviors of CO2 is not being not being trapped.
The point that the science actually isn't very politicized at all. Politicians using climate change as a wedge issue =! the science. I've given up on the policy side of things. For now anyway. More and more studies are coming out that are showing we're crossing a threshold where climate change is a future issue to climate change being a current issue. 10-15 years from now I really look forward to how the denial of climate change is seen.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions