I am not hell bent on anything. We have both stated several times our willingness to discuss things, yet it is you who continues to label us as some kind of extremists. You refuse to acknowledge that there is a possibility YOU and your sceptic buddies can be wrong.
I just showed how trustworthy your source was..outright lies, and all..
If the above were true, you would not consistently argue any possibility that we are not to blame. I have readily stated we cause rising in CO2, and pollution. But you repeatedly come to the conclusion that this means we cause hinky weather. We don't. The science is there. The only contribution we make to it is when polluting went unchecked, smog made things cooler. since we cleaned up our act, there wasn't smog to block out the sun. Now we are causing smog again with E85, gone unchecked it will get cooler again. But none of it is significant enough to have caused the drastic changes we have seen, it only contributes on an infantesimal(sp?) level that is not even noticable. A single volcanic erruption makes more of a difference that smog, or the lack thereof.
so no. I am not going to jump on board the man-made global warming wagon, or even the one for the "we might be the cause."
I just showed how trustworthy your source was..outright lies, and all..
If the above were true, you would not consistently argue any possibility that we are not to blame. I have readily stated we cause rising in CO2, and pollution. But you repeatedly come to the conclusion that this means we cause hinky weather. We don't. The science is there. The only contribution we make to it is when polluting went unchecked, smog made things cooler. since we cleaned up our act, there wasn't smog to block out the sun. Now we are causing smog again with E85, gone unchecked it will get cooler again. But none of it is significant enough to have caused the drastic changes we have seen, it only contributes on an infantesimal(sp?) level that is not even noticable. A single volcanic erruption makes more of a difference that smog, or the lack thereof.
so no. I am not going to jump on board the man-made global warming wagon, or even the one for the "we might be the cause."
Then there is no discussion to be had and this is useless. I will definitely still call them credible. One wrong graph does not mean they are not credible. This is what science is all about, making hypotheses and attempting to validate them or invalidate them. If you cannot accept there might be another explanation then you do not understand basic science.
Do you actually understand what I am posting? The corrections are for one graph, the sea temperatures. The fact that you tried to explain them for all the rest of the graphs means you have no idea what they really mean hahaha
You keep bringing in Al Gore to invalidate my argument when I could care less what he has to say. So continue if you must. The Nature article I posted at the end is a summary of what happened in year 2008 not all the relevant research by the way. You should look into the references the author made in her report from journals like "Journal of Geophysical Research" but I guess you didn't read the first part to realise that.
This has turned more into an argument than a discussion so it is pointless to continue.
I want to point out that of the 7 graphs posted, 2 don't show data for the 30's and 40's so there were no 'curves' to 'even out' on them. The one of those two that needs to be noted is the very first. The data on it still stands.
Of the other 5, 2 have nothing to do with temps, they show rain and hurricane data.
Of the other 3, one has no focus on that period of time, it's purpose is to highlight the temps prior to industrialisation, and specifically during the medieval and little ice age periods, during all of which, modern measuring instruments did not exist, it's measured by historical data and ice core samples.
And the last 2 are actually essentially just one, 2 almost identical graphs..And in both of them the temps measured during the 30's and 40's is not really relevant to what is being highlighted. In fact the new data being brought to light by what is in your article means that with the corrections, the temps actually correlate more precisely with solar activity than previously thought. Thank you for pointing that out
Now take a look at #5 on the page you linked to. I now find it extremely difficult to take that page seriously. Politicians are not scientists so who cares what they "admitted."
Near universal consensus is a sham initiated by Gore. Just ask Doctors Iain Murray, Richard Lindzen, Arthur Robinson, Noah Robinson, Willie soon, Marlo Lewis (who identified 50 clear lies in Gore's film), Paul Driessen, Ron Bailey, Aaron Wildavsky, Petr Chylek, William Gray, Joel schwartz, Mike Hulme, R.J.smith, Christopher Horner, Henrik svensmark, Dennis Bray, Robert Giegengack, Bob Carter, William Happer, Michael Gough, Bjorn Lomborg, Owen Mcshane, Max Mayfield, Freeman Dyson(who would also readily tell you what crap GCM's are, actually so would Murray, Lindzen, Lewis, and Horner, for certain, but no doubt, the other's would too..), Lubos Motl, Igor Polyakov, syun-Ichi Akasofu, and 7 of their colleagues from the IARC (who prefer not to be named) Robert Balling, Kerry Emanuel, Richard Anthes, Judith Curry, James Elsner, Greg Holland, Phil Klotzbach, Tom Knutson, Chris Landsea, Peter Webster, Roger Pielke Jr., P.J.Polissar, G.Kaser, Jack Hollander, Martin Hoffert, Peter Doran, Gerd Wendler, Patrick Michaels..
That's 53 out of 80 climate scientists in America...thus far..I intend to contact the other 27 to know where they stand as well. Only one of the 80 actually signed the 'consensus' that was passed around. One.
I also intend to find out exactly how many climate scientists there are in the world. Though I know there are less than 1000.
The 'near universal consensus' boasts 2600 signatures. 60% of them are from folk who are not even scientists. And all but one of the rest belong to scientists who have not studied in the field of climate science, and therefore have no authority on the subject.
Roger Revelle and s.Fred singer must be mentioned as Revelle was Gore's hero who guided him towards the light that is gw. Except he didn't. The opposite in fact. And after Revelle came out and said as much he went from hero to drooling old fool unfit to comment on the issues, despite his having remained active in the feild till his death. And singer needs noting cos he went out there with Revelle, as his colleague (you can find the 1991 article from them in the very first Cosmos journal..).
Documents show, on Gore's orders, his aides and associates slandered singer into oblivion. And much later it was shown that Revelle, had published a paper that concluded there was no evidence that GHG's cause warming.
What did Gore go by?
"A survey of more than 928 [meaning 929 :roll:] scientific papers in respected journals shows 100% agreement."
Actually that represents less than one-tenth of the relevant scientific literature on the topic. Furthermore, the cherry-picked articles are in no way unanimous on the issue at hand.
The relevant scientific literature amounts to over 11,000 articles. Making #5 an out right lie. It only takes one to bring into question the honesty behind the rest.
Oh yea, and Nature magazine began losing credibility with legitimate climate scientists after publishing that the hockey stick model was correct, despite it not having gone up for peer review again before being published. Peer reviews are what kept it from getting published in other journals like Journal of Geophysical Research, and International Journal of Climatology.
Why has it been rejected elsewhere? Cos Mann refused to show all his "research."
After complaints started filing in from other climate scientists due to his erasing the medieval warming period and little ice age from his "data" making his graph look like we previously had a fairly stable climate before the heat hit, the National Academy of sciences launched an investigation. The panel inescapably indicted the Hockey stick, the UN IPCC, and the Mann team itself. The panel specifically accused the IPCC of misrepresentation, and specifically accused the Mann team of downplaying historical uncertainties.
It was after this report was published that Nature published the hockey stick as "accurate" and even headlined the article as "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph," An outright lie.
You can do a lot with presentation graphs and statistics. I should know, I deal with them dailly at my job.
A general comment: I'm not sure how valuable it is to show lines as means instead of trends on several of these figures. I suppose the intention is to highlight the "no change" if one go far enough back. But I will make comment on a couple of these figures:
First of all, a one-month drop doesn't disprove or prove anything. They have occurred before, and they'll occur again. If that line bounces right back up in a month or two, then it is largely insignificant to the larger trend.
Figure 1: Just because we are at a 3000 year average right now, doesnt mean that we "naturally" should be. It says nothing in itself about global warming as a human thing or not. It only shows that it has varied. The whole point and conclusions of the IPCC has been based on trend-data whose underlying numbers vary quite a deal.
Figure 5: Actually indicates that US temperatures aren't as connected to solar activity if you look closer on it. There are several down-spikes in temperatures while the sun goes up, and vice versa. Of course there are some relation between the two, but there's plenty of wriggle-room for additional factors having a noticable and significant impact. Solar activity is an insufficient explanation here. This also goes for figure 3. The spikes in solar activity does not correspond to the spikes in temperature.
Figure 10: The mean line does not give a rightful representation. Given that every dot from the mid90s onwards is OVER the mean line (with 2 on the line, and only 1 any distance under it) a straight line does not give a truthful image. Also, looking at the peaks in the 50s and 60s, they dropped back to mean after that 1 spike year, while now, they are huddling together at consistently higher levels
Making charts is easy, as is skewing them.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I just showed how trustworthy your source was..outright lies, and all..
If the above were true, you would not consistently argue any possibility that we are not to blame. I have readily stated we cause rising in CO2, and pollution. But you repeatedly come to the conclusion that this means we cause hinky weather. We don't. The science is there. The only contribution we make to it is when polluting went unchecked, smog made things cooler. since we cleaned up our act, there wasn't smog to block out the sun. Now we are causing smog again with E85, gone unchecked it will get cooler again. But none of it is significant enough to have caused the drastic changes we have seen, it only contributes on an infantesimal(sp?) level that is not even noticable. A single volcanic erruption makes more of a difference that smog, or the lack thereof.
so no. I am not going to jump on board the man-made global warming wagon, or even the one for the "we might be the cause."
Then there is no discussion to be had and this is useless. I will definitely still call them credible. One wrong graph does not mean they are not credible. This is what science is all about, making hypotheses and attempting to validate them or invalidate them. If you cannot accept there might be another explanation then you do not understand basic science.
Do you actually understand what I am posting? The corrections are for one graph, the sea temperatures. The fact that you tried to explain them for all the rest of the graphs means you have no idea what they really mean hahaha
You keep bringing in Al Gore to invalidate my argument when I could care less what he has to say. So continue if you must. The Nature article I posted at the end is a summary of what happened in year 2008 not all the relevant research by the way. You should look into the references the author made in her report from journals like "Journal of Geophysical Research" but I guess you didn't read the first part to realise that.
This has turned more into an argument than a discussion so it is pointless to continue.
One wrong graph is easily excusable, by all means. Reading thru the nas report, seeing how wrong the graph is and that the "research" was biased, and how much the nas was angry over the falsified data, then publishing it in your journal without a peer review while falsley claiming the nas found in favour of Mann and supports the data..That is completely inexcusable and shows what kind of journal they are.
I can fully accept there may be another answer. There are any number of potential other causes, but I guarantee you, there is no root cause other than the Earth has been unstable since it started spinning. There are simply too many factors in play here. But humans aren't one of them. It has been studied to death and the overwhelming majority of the data returning says we are not the cause. At which point do you accept the data? When the scientific community is unanimous? You will be waiting for that day eternally. That just doesn't happen in science. You are lucky to get 70% to agree on one theory.
Al Gore is central to the subject. He initiated it and continues to pull the strings behind the curtain.
I ask again, when there are over 11,000 articles, and only 929 agree to an extent, at which point do you accept the data?
Dan-
The chart shows a 12 month drop, not just one month..
With figure one, it's not attempting to highlight that we are at an average. It's point was to show the spike during the medieval warming period, and the quick drop during the little ice age..To show that we have not, by any means, had the more "stable" climate that corrupted scientists like Mann are trying to claim we did. Mann and the like are attempting to dupe people into thinking we had a stable climit till humans came along and caused the heat to rise, so they can pin the blame on us.
It also is to show that while we had been warming up since the little ice age (big revelation there :roll:) it is still not as hot as it was in a period prior to industrialisation..In otherwords, if we are causing the warming, what made it hotter than it is today before we industrialised?
With figure 5, you have to bear in mind that there are other causes for temperature changes. Volcanos erupting, position of the earth in regards to the sun (ice reflects more heat, ocean absorbs more..etc, which means it is still being affected by the sun..)..If a comet hits, it has the same cooling effect as an eruption. More rain equals more warmth..etc.
But as you see in fig.3, firstly the drop near the 30's should be disregarded as Nok pointed out about the measuring methods being used during that period..Otherwise, the arctic air temps correlate more with the solar activity, and don't match up with the hydrocarbon use.
And with fig.10, if the 2 are counted as on the line by you, then the other 3 touching it should count as "on" the line as well (talk about skewing). Making for only 6 that are above it, and therefore making it very similar to what is shown for the 50's and 60's, only then, there were a lot more hurricanes in general. With that said, the vast majority hit on, or right near, the average.
I did not alter these charts. They are posted as they were given by the sources. Figures 1, 3, and 5 are from giss, and the last 4 all come from the same source as listed with fig, 7 and 8 (too much to type out again..)
I have found this thread to be very interesting and informative. I looked up some research on my own and found that a lot of what RM291946 has posted is very valid in my personal opinion. I come from a Christian up bringing and vocation and feel that the Church has neglected proper study on this issue. I personally do not believe that global warming is a product of mankind but pollution and the hole in the ozone however is. In the Bible God told made to be stewards of the planet. He didn't say screw it up. I think that what is happening to the climate is just the the way the world is changing naturally. Great job RM291946 on your findings
"i need honesty ,i need hope i need truth - i NEED IT! that's what music means to me"(ed)
I have found this thread to be very interesting and informative. I looked up some research on my own and found that a lot of what RM291946 has posted is very valid in my personal opinion. I come from a Christian up bringing and vocation and feel that the Church has neglected proper study on this issue. I personally do not believe that global warming is a product of mankind but pollution and the hole in the ozone however is. In the Bible God told made to be stewards of the planet. He didn't say screw it up. I think that what is happening to the climate is just the the way the world is changing naturally. Great job RM291946 on your findings
Thank you doll
I want to add on to what you said about the hole in the ozone. I am first to admit we are responsible for it, but I find it interesting what is happening with it now..We can't close it, only warmth can. For a short period of time the temp in the upper ozone down there was warmer (note- I said upper) The hole was closing rapidly. But then the temps dropped down again and it has since grown much larger than the biggest size it had ever been before the short period of warming :(
Dan-
The chart shows a 12 month drop, not just one month..
Well, the initial "drop" was down from a peak to a more average level. That's just regression towards the mean. The real drop is in the last few months. The "El Nina" phenomenon has something to do with that as well. If the temperatures remain down there for a long time, it can be called a real and significant drop.
With figure one, it's not attempting to highlight that we are at an average. It's point was to show the spike during the medieval warming period, and the quick drop during the little ice age..To show that we have not, by any means, had the more "stable" climate that corrupted scientists like Mann are trying to claim we did. Mann and the like are attempting to dupe people into thinking we had a stable climit till humans came along and caused the heat to rise, so they can pin the blame on us.
It also is to show that while we had been warming up since the little ice age (big revelation there :roll:) it is still not as hot as it was in a period prior to industrialisation..In otherwords, if we are causing the warming, what made it hotter than it is today before we industrialised?
I have no idea who this "Mann" charcter is, but the science of global warming depends on no one man. I suppose he's one of Gore's people, and from what I've gathered, Gore does lay it on thick and overly simplified.
Noone is contesting that there have been a lot of variation in the temperature in the past, also well above today's levels. But it is not an argument either way in whether the current warming has got some help from us or not. The planet lives well with temperature changes. It's our current civilization and it's closeness to water that are causing problems for us with a slight diffence in temperature.
With figure 5, you have to bear in mind that there are other causes for temperature changes. Volcanos erupting, position of the earth in regards to the sun (ice reflects more heat, ocean absorbs more..etc, which means it is still being affected by the sun..)..If a comet hits, it has the same cooling effect as an eruption. More rain equals more warmth..etc.
But as you see in fig.3, firstly the drop near the 30's should be disregarded as Nok pointed out about the measuring methods being used during that period..Otherwise, the arctic air temps correlate more with the solar activity, and don't match up with the hydrocarbon use.
...and humans adding loads of carbon to the atmosphere may also be an accessory. That the curves dont follow, could mean that it didn't have much of an effect, until a certain threshold was reached. At least from the 60s correlates decently with the upwards swing. The point is really that you can't look at any one effect, which is what is mostly done in these tables. The IPCC looks at all the factors combined and checks for effects in the model. After checking for many other variables, human activity is highly likely to have an impact.
And with fig.10, if the 2 are counted as on the line by you, then the other 3 touching it should count as "on" the line as well (talk about skewing). Making for only 6 that are above it, and therefore making it very similar to what is shown for the 50's and 60's, only then, there were a lot more hurricanes in general. With that said, the vast majority hit on, or right near, the average.
This is where I mean that a mean value doesnt paint the right picture. Drawing a regression line along the dots, you'd get an increasing line from the 90s onwards that much more closely follows the data. An exponential equation would slightly drop until the 70s, and then gradually build upwards from the 90s. Means can be misleading, as they depend heavily on where you start counting to make it.
I did not alter these charts. They are posted as they were given by the sources. Figures 1, 3, and 5 are from giss, and the last 4 all come from the same source as listed with fig, 7 and 8 (too much to type out again..)
I didnt say that you were doing the misleading. I am just saying that how data is presented graphically has an impact on how the data is viewed. A regular culprit, particularly in the media, is changing the scales on the sides to make changes look more dramatic.
Here, to gather some clout, they must conduct studies that conclusively show that W pr m2 has a relation with temperature, and how much. And also add to existing models to show that it makes for a better explanation.
I'm not saying they are full of it, it should certainly be looked into. But this evidence doesnt prove anything, it just asks questions that are not answered. The current climate change models include a plausible mechanism for the warming, as we know CO2 holds on to heat, and that we are releasing it at increasing amounts continuously. (as well as cutting down the carbon sinks, ie trees) The planet has had a carbon cycle that traps carbon under the ground for millions of years in rock. We are pumping it out and adding to the atmosphere far faster than is taken up by the rocks and seabed. If this model is to be dislodged, we need another, better explanation of plausible explanations. And I hope someone makes the effort. But so far, the by far most respected, accepted and substantiated model is that we indeed have had a significant impact. It may be that the temperature is naturally rising, but we may be speeding it up further than it otherwise would.
More science is definitely and continuously needed, but for now, we must prepare from what we know now. Not just hope the model is wrong and go on about our business unchanged.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
The temps remained down there for a full year after that initial 12 month drop. And this Jan. has made records for how cold it is..My personal opinion is that the temps are going to coninue to stay low for some time to come. Last year there was zero solar activity. It's expected to stay that way, or at least close to it.
Dr.Michael Mann created the 'hockey stick' graph. Gore and Hansen saw it and grabbed onto it as "proof" we are responsible for GW.
I'm more than willing to accept we are partially responsible if, and only if, they came up with a different potential reason. The reasons they have given thus far have been rsearched and largely found to be simply not possible, or not true, or both.
I don't think I understand what you are mean about living close to water? I will say, as I have before, that we do have an effect on local climate, namely cos of all the black tar (surface? sorry I'm in a bad fog lately..). It's so stupid too...sure it's cheaper right now, but it needs repaving a lot more often than concrete making it just as expensive, if not more so..
With those graphs I see what you are saying. But they don't include the most recent data showing the drop. The carbon levels are still steadily going up, but the temps dropped despite that.
Highly likely in science is like highly likely in medicine. Would you take a medicine that is only highly likely to help an ailment, or would you prefer something that is more conclusive?
I see what you're saying about the hurricanes. And with that, it means you have to now consider how 2006, for the first time in 12 years, had a season with below average activity. Only 5 hurricanes, and only 2 of those were major, neither of which hit land. Only 2 of the minor hurricane's hit land, and Ernesto was actually only hurricane for a very short period of time. Almost as soon as it hit land it got down-graded. All this below average activity was due to 2006 being amoung the hottest years on record, ultimately proving heat causes weather to become more mild, not more active. And the only reason 2006 was as hot as it was is because of el nino.
2007 was a very busy year, starting early, and ending late. As the temps plunged, Dean punched the hell out of Mexico as a Cat.5. The strongest to hit land since Andrew in 92. Then Felix hit Nica. as a Cat.5. Two Cat.5's hit land in the same season has never happened in recorded history. Plus a third hurricane hit Texas. And Noel hit the Dominican Republic and Haiti. In all, there were 6 hurricanes.
As temps plunged further, 2008 was another busy year..both 2007 and 2008 goes further towards showing it's cold that causes more hurricanes, not warmth..Haiti, Cuba, and Texas got hardest hit, and hurricanes Fay, Gustav, and Ike killed more than 800 people in Haiti.
Why is it that noone cares to help Haiti other than south Florida..Every time, Haiti and south Florida..we only have each other to depend on, none of the rest of this country cares about either of us. Worse, you guys like to add insult to injury.
Hansen's own supervisor just declared himself a skeptic of GW, and said that Hansen is an embarrassment to nasa, was never "muzzled," and called the general climate models 'worthless.' so it's not just hope that the model's are wrong. Being worthless means they aren't worth taking note of in the first place.
I'm posting the article about Hansen's former boss, along with another one regarding the models, in a couple new threads..
The temps remained down there for a full year after that initial 12 month drop. And this Jan. has made records for how cold it is..My personal opinion is that the temps are going to coninue to stay low for some time to come. Last year there was zero solar activity. It's expected to stay that way, or at least close to it.
I take it you are not referring to the first graph in the op now. There, there's a temp spike in like march, going back to the mean, and around july/august starts to drop.
I don't think I understand what you are mean about living close to water?
By that I mean that temperatures dont have to rise much relative to former periods of time to have a devastating effect on us here and now. Since we all live near water, a couple of meters rise really fucks us up. So, going deep historical isn't really telling us anything, apart from the possible variations. And that the climate has in the past varied more than what is seen now, is not an argument either way about the current changes.
Highly likely in science is like highly likely in medicine. Would you take a medicine that is only highly likely to help an ailment, or would you prefer something that is more conclusive?
But "highly likely" is usually as good an answer as you'll ever get both in science AND medicine. MEdicines are dispensed if they are showed to have an effect on a certain percentage point of patients above the placebo level. It's not as solid as you'd might think. When scientists say "highly likely", they really say, "This is just about certain from what we know now (but we always leave nominal room for alternative options)". Highly likely things have been wrong before, and stuff that are highly likely have been highly likely for so long we treat it as law. There are very few things you'd get a scientist to claim rock solid truth on, unless it's about something that hasn't been disputed for, say, a century.
Otherwise, I dont think we are that much at disagreement. Other sources must be checked out, and there is definitely a lot more science and investigation needed. But since the consequences can be so dire, and the most credible present evidence point in that direction, we cannot afford to disregard our effect on the global temperature, as well as other environmental issues.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I will review your information thoroughly and cross check when I have a few hours to kill but in the meantime I just to make sure you understand the difference between a fluctuation and a trend. I hear this argument all of the time. "It's cold as shit this winter so obviously global warming is not real".
And by the way, the people who matter in this debate (the scientists) are not swayed by Al Gore's campaign, they're the ones supplying him with his talking points.
Oh na, well yes and na..The first graph shows the drop from the beginning of 1/07 - 1/08. But the temps have continued to stay down from 1/08 - 1/09, and already this month is proving to continue the trend, making for 2 years and 1 month thus far of continuously low temps.
Ah I see..Yea it would..But it won't rise that much. The average has been 7 inches per century. And sea level rise has slowed way down. Regardless, Gore is hyped up on crack to think it will rise 20 feet by 2050. With that said, the main purpose of showing the data going back that far is merely to illustrate that climate change is nothing new to our planet. Hansen has used nasa and the IPCC to make false claims that our climate was fairly stable before we came along and ruined things. But you have to completely disregard those claims cos they simply aren't true. If you look at it from the perspective of his, and the IPCC's falsified data, the end result will always be that we are causing this. Ignore them, and look at the real data, and you have a slew of new options open up all of a sudden. To date, the solar activity is being found to be the most consistent with our temperatures, which is why I have been showing about it.
Point taken..I think you will find with the newest stuff I posted, it's actually the opposite, scientists think gw is highly unlikely. Even the most highest respected top climate scientists in the world. still leaves the option open tho.
My biggest concern is that the more that comes to light, the more I am seeing the trail of damage following the professional environmentalists, most of all from the top most influantial IPCC and Friend's of Earth groups. Along with the God awful Endangered species Act..They really want to kill all animals, including us. Tho at least with the latter, it's just sheer stupidity, not a hidden agenda.
gabers- oh no, deffo not one of those kind..like I'm telling Dan, it's based more on data going back 3000 years and known cyclical patterns.
I think what has been stated by Hansen's former boss, along with a majority of the rest of the climate scientists, paired with the audit of the IPCC is very eye-opening and shows just how much politics has played a role in this and how corrupted the scientists behind Gore's talking points really are. They are all being indicted now for knowingly falsifying data.
Comments
I just showed how trustworthy your source was..outright lies, and all..
If the above were true, you would not consistently argue any possibility that we are not to blame. I have readily stated we cause rising in CO2, and pollution. But you repeatedly come to the conclusion that this means we cause hinky weather. We don't. The science is there. The only contribution we make to it is when polluting went unchecked, smog made things cooler. since we cleaned up our act, there wasn't smog to block out the sun. Now we are causing smog again with E85, gone unchecked it will get cooler again. But none of it is significant enough to have caused the drastic changes we have seen, it only contributes on an infantesimal(sp?) level that is not even noticable. A single volcanic erruption makes more of a difference that smog, or the lack thereof.
so no. I am not going to jump on board the man-made global warming wagon, or even the one for the "we might be the cause."
Then there is no discussion to be had and this is useless. I will definitely still call them credible. One wrong graph does not mean they are not credible. This is what science is all about, making hypotheses and attempting to validate them or invalidate them. If you cannot accept there might be another explanation then you do not understand basic science.
Do you actually understand what I am posting? The corrections are for one graph, the sea temperatures. The fact that you tried to explain them for all the rest of the graphs means you have no idea what they really mean hahaha
You keep bringing in Al Gore to invalidate my argument when I could care less what he has to say. So continue if you must. The Nature article I posted at the end is a summary of what happened in year 2008 not all the relevant research by the way. You should look into the references the author made in her report from journals like "Journal of Geophysical Research" but I guess you didn't read the first part to realise that.
This has turned more into an argument than a discussion so it is pointless to continue.
will you marry me? :oops:
A general comment: I'm not sure how valuable it is to show lines as means instead of trends on several of these figures. I suppose the intention is to highlight the "no change" if one go far enough back. But I will make comment on a couple of these figures:
First of all, a one-month drop doesn't disprove or prove anything. They have occurred before, and they'll occur again. If that line bounces right back up in a month or two, then it is largely insignificant to the larger trend.
Figure 1: Just because we are at a 3000 year average right now, doesnt mean that we "naturally" should be. It says nothing in itself about global warming as a human thing or not. It only shows that it has varied. The whole point and conclusions of the IPCC has been based on trend-data whose underlying numbers vary quite a deal.
Figure 5: Actually indicates that US temperatures aren't as connected to solar activity if you look closer on it. There are several down-spikes in temperatures while the sun goes up, and vice versa. Of course there are some relation between the two, but there's plenty of wriggle-room for additional factors having a noticable and significant impact. Solar activity is an insufficient explanation here. This also goes for figure 3. The spikes in solar activity does not correspond to the spikes in temperature.
Figure 10: The mean line does not give a rightful representation. Given that every dot from the mid90s onwards is OVER the mean line (with 2 on the line, and only 1 any distance under it) a straight line does not give a truthful image. Also, looking at the peaks in the 50s and 60s, they dropped back to mean after that 1 spike year, while now, they are huddling together at consistently higher levels
Making charts is easy, as is skewing them.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
One wrong graph is easily excusable, by all means. Reading thru the nas report, seeing how wrong the graph is and that the "research" was biased, and how much the nas was angry over the falsified data, then publishing it in your journal without a peer review while falsley claiming the nas found in favour of Mann and supports the data..That is completely inexcusable and shows what kind of journal they are.
I can fully accept there may be another answer. There are any number of potential other causes, but I guarantee you, there is no root cause other than the Earth has been unstable since it started spinning. There are simply too many factors in play here. But humans aren't one of them. It has been studied to death and the overwhelming majority of the data returning says we are not the cause. At which point do you accept the data? When the scientific community is unanimous? You will be waiting for that day eternally. That just doesn't happen in science. You are lucky to get 70% to agree on one theory.
Al Gore is central to the subject. He initiated it and continues to pull the strings behind the curtain.
I ask again, when there are over 11,000 articles, and only 929 agree to an extent, at which point do you accept the data?
The chart shows a 12 month drop, not just one month..
With figure one, it's not attempting to highlight that we are at an average. It's point was to show the spike during the medieval warming period, and the quick drop during the little ice age..To show that we have not, by any means, had the more "stable" climate that corrupted scientists like Mann are trying to claim we did. Mann and the like are attempting to dupe people into thinking we had a stable climit till humans came along and caused the heat to rise, so they can pin the blame on us.
It also is to show that while we had been warming up since the little ice age (big revelation there :roll:) it is still not as hot as it was in a period prior to industrialisation..In otherwords, if we are causing the warming, what made it hotter than it is today before we industrialised?
With figure 5, you have to bear in mind that there are other causes for temperature changes. Volcanos erupting, position of the earth in regards to the sun (ice reflects more heat, ocean absorbs more..etc, which means it is still being affected by the sun..)..If a comet hits, it has the same cooling effect as an eruption. More rain equals more warmth..etc.
But as you see in fig.3, firstly the drop near the 30's should be disregarded as Nok pointed out about the measuring methods being used during that period..Otherwise, the arctic air temps correlate more with the solar activity, and don't match up with the hydrocarbon use.
And with fig.10, if the 2 are counted as on the line by you, then the other 3 touching it should count as "on" the line as well (talk about skewing). Making for only 6 that are above it, and therefore making it very similar to what is shown for the 50's and 60's, only then, there were a lot more hurricanes in general. With that said, the vast majority hit on, or right near, the average.
I did not alter these charts. They are posted as they were given by the sources. Figures 1, 3, and 5 are from giss, and the last 4 all come from the same source as listed with fig, 7 and 8 (too much to type out again..)
Yes - global climate change is real and humans have very little to do with it.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
so....yes?
Thank you doll
I want to add on to what you said about the hole in the ozone. I am first to admit we are responsible for it, but I find it interesting what is happening with it now..We can't close it, only warmth can. For a short period of time the temp in the upper ozone down there was warmer (note- I said upper) The hole was closing rapidly. But then the temps dropped down again and it has since grown much larger than the biggest size it had ever been before the short period of warming :(
sure why not.......rofl...
I have no idea who this "Mann" charcter is, but the science of global warming depends on no one man. I suppose he's one of Gore's people, and from what I've gathered, Gore does lay it on thick and overly simplified.
Noone is contesting that there have been a lot of variation in the temperature in the past, also well above today's levels. But it is not an argument either way in whether the current warming has got some help from us or not. The planet lives well with temperature changes. It's our current civilization and it's closeness to water that are causing problems for us with a slight diffence in temperature.
...and humans adding loads of carbon to the atmosphere may also be an accessory. That the curves dont follow, could mean that it didn't have much of an effect, until a certain threshold was reached. At least from the 60s correlates decently with the upwards swing. The point is really that you can't look at any one effect, which is what is mostly done in these tables. The IPCC looks at all the factors combined and checks for effects in the model. After checking for many other variables, human activity is highly likely to have an impact.
This is where I mean that a mean value doesnt paint the right picture. Drawing a regression line along the dots, you'd get an increasing line from the 90s onwards that much more closely follows the data. An exponential equation would slightly drop until the 70s, and then gradually build upwards from the 90s. Means can be misleading, as they depend heavily on where you start counting to make it.
I didnt say that you were doing the misleading. I am just saying that how data is presented graphically has an impact on how the data is viewed. A regular culprit, particularly in the media, is changing the scales on the sides to make changes look more dramatic.
Here, to gather some clout, they must conduct studies that conclusively show that W pr m2 has a relation with temperature, and how much. And also add to existing models to show that it makes for a better explanation.
I'm not saying they are full of it, it should certainly be looked into. But this evidence doesnt prove anything, it just asks questions that are not answered. The current climate change models include a plausible mechanism for the warming, as we know CO2 holds on to heat, and that we are releasing it at increasing amounts continuously. (as well as cutting down the carbon sinks, ie trees) The planet has had a carbon cycle that traps carbon under the ground for millions of years in rock. We are pumping it out and adding to the atmosphere far faster than is taken up by the rocks and seabed. If this model is to be dislodged, we need another, better explanation of plausible explanations. And I hope someone makes the effort. But so far, the by far most respected, accepted and substantiated model is that we indeed have had a significant impact. It may be that the temperature is naturally rising, but we may be speeding it up further than it otherwise would.
More science is definitely and continuously needed, but for now, we must prepare from what we know now. Not just hope the model is wrong and go on about our business unchanged.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Dr.Michael Mann created the 'hockey stick' graph. Gore and Hansen saw it and grabbed onto it as "proof" we are responsible for GW.
I'm more than willing to accept we are partially responsible if, and only if, they came up with a different potential reason. The reasons they have given thus far have been rsearched and largely found to be simply not possible, or not true, or both.
I don't think I understand what you are mean about living close to water? I will say, as I have before, that we do have an effect on local climate, namely cos of all the black tar (surface? sorry I'm in a bad fog lately..). It's so stupid too...sure it's cheaper right now, but it needs repaving a lot more often than concrete making it just as expensive, if not more so..
With those graphs I see what you are saying. But they don't include the most recent data showing the drop. The carbon levels are still steadily going up, but the temps dropped despite that.
Highly likely in science is like highly likely in medicine. Would you take a medicine that is only highly likely to help an ailment, or would you prefer something that is more conclusive?
I see what you're saying about the hurricanes. And with that, it means you have to now consider how 2006, for the first time in 12 years, had a season with below average activity. Only 5 hurricanes, and only 2 of those were major, neither of which hit land. Only 2 of the minor hurricane's hit land, and Ernesto was actually only hurricane for a very short period of time. Almost as soon as it hit land it got down-graded. All this below average activity was due to 2006 being amoung the hottest years on record, ultimately proving heat causes weather to become more mild, not more active. And the only reason 2006 was as hot as it was is because of el nino.
2007 was a very busy year, starting early, and ending late. As the temps plunged, Dean punched the hell out of Mexico as a Cat.5. The strongest to hit land since Andrew in 92. Then Felix hit Nica. as a Cat.5. Two Cat.5's hit land in the same season has never happened in recorded history. Plus a third hurricane hit Texas. And Noel hit the Dominican Republic and Haiti. In all, there were 6 hurricanes.
As temps plunged further, 2008 was another busy year..both 2007 and 2008 goes further towards showing it's cold that causes more hurricanes, not warmth..Haiti, Cuba, and Texas got hardest hit, and hurricanes Fay, Gustav, and Ike killed more than 800 people in Haiti.
Why is it that noone cares to help Haiti other than south Florida..Every time, Haiti and south Florida..we only have each other to depend on, none of the rest of this country cares about either of us. Worse, you guys like to add insult to injury.
Hansen's own supervisor just declared himself a skeptic of GW, and said that Hansen is an embarrassment to nasa, was never "muzzled," and called the general climate models 'worthless.' so it's not just hope that the model's are wrong. Being worthless means they aren't worth taking note of in the first place.
I'm posting the article about Hansen's former boss, along with another one regarding the models, in a couple new threads..
By that I mean that temperatures dont have to rise much relative to former periods of time to have a devastating effect on us here and now. Since we all live near water, a couple of meters rise really fucks us up. So, going deep historical isn't really telling us anything, apart from the possible variations. And that the climate has in the past varied more than what is seen now, is not an argument either way about the current changes.
But "highly likely" is usually as good an answer as you'll ever get both in science AND medicine. MEdicines are dispensed if they are showed to have an effect on a certain percentage point of patients above the placebo level. It's not as solid as you'd might think. When scientists say "highly likely", they really say, "This is just about certain from what we know now (but we always leave nominal room for alternative options)". Highly likely things have been wrong before, and stuff that are highly likely have been highly likely for so long we treat it as law. There are very few things you'd get a scientist to claim rock solid truth on, unless it's about something that hasn't been disputed for, say, a century.
Otherwise, I dont think we are that much at disagreement. Other sources must be checked out, and there is definitely a lot more science and investigation needed. But since the consequences can be so dire, and the most credible present evidence point in that direction, we cannot afford to disregard our effect on the global temperature, as well as other environmental issues.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
And by the way, the people who matter in this debate (the scientists) are not swayed by Al Gore's campaign, they're the ones supplying him with his talking points.
Ah I see..Yea it would..But it won't rise that much. The average has been 7 inches per century. And sea level rise has slowed way down. Regardless, Gore is hyped up on crack to think it will rise 20 feet by 2050. With that said, the main purpose of showing the data going back that far is merely to illustrate that climate change is nothing new to our planet. Hansen has used nasa and the IPCC to make false claims that our climate was fairly stable before we came along and ruined things. But you have to completely disregard those claims cos they simply aren't true. If you look at it from the perspective of his, and the IPCC's falsified data, the end result will always be that we are causing this. Ignore them, and look at the real data, and you have a slew of new options open up all of a sudden. To date, the solar activity is being found to be the most consistent with our temperatures, which is why I have been showing about it.
Point taken..I think you will find with the newest stuff I posted, it's actually the opposite, scientists think gw is highly unlikely. Even the most highest respected top climate scientists in the world. still leaves the option open tho.
My biggest concern is that the more that comes to light, the more I am seeing the trail of damage following the professional environmentalists, most of all from the top most influantial IPCC and Friend's of Earth groups. Along with the God awful Endangered species Act..They really want to kill all animals, including us. Tho at least with the latter, it's just sheer stupidity, not a hidden agenda.
gabers- oh no, deffo not one of those kind..like I'm telling Dan, it's based more on data going back 3000 years and known cyclical patterns.
I think what has been stated by Hansen's former boss, along with a majority of the rest of the climate scientists, paired with the audit of the IPCC is very eye-opening and shows just how much politics has played a role in this and how corrupted the scientists behind Gore's talking points really are. They are all being indicted now for knowingly falsifying data.