|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jmuns
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
Location: earth
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:21 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| And the silence is deafening... |
can i get a link to prove this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jmuns wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| And the silence is deafening... |
can i get a link to prove this? |
Been 4 days since I posted the links and not a single nibble. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Cognitive dissonance is the uncomfortable feeling you get when confronted with two contradictory ideas. For example, how can one be skeptical about man-made global warming when there is so much empirical evidence? Climategate has provided a way for some to resolve this issue - simply discredit all the evidence for global warming. By focusing on suggestive quotes from a handful of emails by a small number of climate scientists, it allows one to write off the entire field of climate science as a vast conspiracy. This line of reasoning allows Senator James Inhofe to conclude "This whole idea of global warming, I'm glad that's over. It's gone. It's done. We won. You lost. Get a life!"
This attack on an entire field of science is unprecedented. As historian Spencer Weart puts it, "we've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance. Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers." One might argue that the stolen emails are being taken out of context and often parsed without scientific understanding. Nevertheless, lest we get bogged down in the details, the broader picture is that Climategate narrowly focuses on the behaviour of a handful of scientists and suggestive inferences about a few pieces of climate data. Somehow this allows skeptics to ignore the entire body of scientific evidence, meticulously accumulated by scientists all over the world. This evidence includes the following independent observations that paint a consistent picture of global warming:
* Our planet is suffering an energy imbalance and is steadily accumulating heat (Hansen 2005, Murphy 2009, Schuckmann 2009, Trenberth 2009)
* Animal and plant species are responding to earlier springs. Eg - earlier frog breeding, bird nesting, earlier flowering, earlier migration of birds and butterflies (Parmeson 2003)
* The distribution of tree lines, plants, birds, mammals, insects, fish, reptiles, marine invertebrates are shifting towards the poles (Parmeson 2003)
* Arctic permafrost is degrading (Anisimov 2006) plus warming at greater depths in the permafrost (Stieglitz 2003)
* Global sea level rise is accelerating (Church 2006)
* Antarctic ice loss is accelerating (Velicogna 2009), even from East Antarctica which was previously thought to be too stable to lose ice mass (Chen 2009)
* Greenland ice loss is accelerating (Velicogna 2009, van den Broeke et al 2009)
* Glaciers are shrinking globally at an accelerating rate (WGMS 2008)
* Arctic sea-ice loss is accelerating with the loss rate exceeding model forecasts by around a factor of 3 (Stroeve 2007).
* The height of the tropopause is increasing (Santer 2003, press release)
* Jet streams are moving poleward (Archer 2008, Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
* The tropical belt is widening (Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
* There is an increasing trend in record hot days versus record cold temperatures with currently twice as many record hot days than record cold temperatures (Meehle 2009, see press release).
The Climategate controversy hasn't even touched upon the empirical evidence indicating that human activity is the cause of recent warming:
* Humans are emitting CO2 at such rates that atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level over the past 800,000 years (Brook 2008). The rate of increase is the fastest in 22,000 years (Joos 2008)
* Satellites measure less infrared radiation escaping out to space at the wavelengths that CO2 absorb energy (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007)
* Surface measurements find more infrared radiation returning back to the Earth's surface (Philipona 2004), specifically at the wavelengths that CO2 absorb energy (Evans 2006)
One cannot deny that some of the Climategate emails are embarrassing for the scientists involved. Their comments and behaviour shouldn't be swept under the carpet and more transparency in climate science is a good thing. However, using quote-mined emails to disregard an entire scientific field is not the behaviour of people genuinely seeking to understand how our climate works. It is, on the other hand, a stupendous act of cognitive dissonance.
UPDATE 8/12/2009: Things Break has emailed me a few other pieces of evidence I'd overlooked:
* A shift towards earlier seasons (Stine 2009)
* Lake and river ice cover throughout the Northern Hemisphere are freezing later and breaking up earlier (Magnuson 2000, Hodgkins 2005)
* Changes to physical and biological systems across the globe are consistent with warming temperatures (Rosenzweig 2008)
* Cooling and contraction of the upper atmosphere consistent with predicted effects of increasing greenhouse gases (Lastovicka 2008)
* Pitcher-plant mosquitoes are genetically evolving to adapt to shifting seasons (Bradshaw 2001) |
"Been weeks since this evidence was posted. The silence is deafening...." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
"Been weeks since this evidence was posted. The silence is deafening...." |
Speaking of evidence, I'm still waiting for you to explain how PPM is not proportional.
Data the AGW warmists almost all agree on agree on:
Please look at this after you figure out what PPM is.
| Quote: |
* The globe warmed about 0.6o and the oceans rose about six inches in the last hundred years, according to the U.N. IPCC. (I use Celsius throughout unless otherwise noted.)
* We are now in what is called an interglacial period, or the time between ice ages. Previous interglacial peaks were three degrees warmer than now. In Antarctica, these previous peaks were actually six degrees warmer.
* Since the last ice age, the oceans rose about four hundred feet. Most of that occurred before the pyramids were built (and well before modern use of fossil fuels), but the trend for hundreds of years up to the present has been rising sea levels.
* The sea ice of the south polar ice cap has grown in the last thirty years.
* Climate scientists have fairly recently recognized a climate cycle they now call the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. "The cause of the oscillation is not well understood, but the cycle appears to come round about every 60 to 70 years." They think this is why temperatures over the last eight years or so do not show the continued warming their models predicted. This and other cycles (Pacific Decadal Oscillation, El Ni�o, La Ni�a) are not included in the IPCC climate models.
* The sun does appear to account for "at least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades," according to two Duke University physicists. While they were quick to remind us "that their findings do not argue against the basic theory that significant global warming is occurring because of carbon dioxide and other 'greenhouse' gases," they note that IPCC-type climate models do not include any solar influences.
* The "ice caps" on Mars shrank over all three years of initial observation by NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions, 2005-2007.
* Glaciers in the northern hemisphere generally have been shrinking for about seven hundred years, while those in the southern hemisphere have been shrinking for the last sixty-five hundred years. (You might notice that those times precede the modern use of fossil fuels.)
* Himalayan glaciers, 230 of the largest mid-latitude glaciers in the world, have been growing since at least 1980.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Quote: |
Cognitive dissonance is the uncomfortable feeling you get when confronted with two contradictory ideas. For example, how can one be skeptical about man-made global warming when there is so much empirical evidence? Climategate has provided a way for some to resolve this issue - simply discredit all the evidence for global warming. By focusing on suggestive quotes from a handful of emails by a small number of climate scientists, it allows one to write off the entire field of climate science as a vast conspiracy. This line of reasoning allows Senator James Inhofe to conclude "This whole idea of global warming, I'm glad that's over. It's gone. It's done. We won. You lost. Get a life!"
This attack on an entire field of science is unprecedented. As historian Spencer Weart puts it, "we've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance. Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers." One might argue that the stolen emails are being taken out of context and often parsed without scientific understanding. Nevertheless, lest we get bogged down in the details, the broader picture is that Climategate narrowly focuses on the behaviour of a handful of scientists and suggestive inferences about a few pieces of climate data. Somehow this allows skeptics to ignore the entire body of scientific evidence, meticulously accumulated by scientists all over the world. This evidence includes the following independent observations that paint a consistent picture of global warming:
* Our planet is suffering an energy imbalance and is steadily accumulating heat (Hansen 2005, Murphy 2009, Schuckmann 2009, Trenberth 2009)
* Animal and plant species are responding to earlier springs. Eg - earlier frog breeding, bird nesting, earlier flowering, earlier migration of birds and butterflies (Parmeson 2003)
* The distribution of tree lines, plants, birds, mammals, insects, fish, reptiles, marine invertebrates are shifting towards the poles (Parmeson 2003)
* Arctic permafrost is degrading (Anisimov 2006) plus warming at greater depths in the permafrost (Stieglitz 2003)
* Global sea level rise is accelerating (Church 2006)
* Antarctic ice loss is accelerating (Velicogna 2009), even from East Antarctica which was previously thought to be too stable to lose ice mass (Chen 2009)
* Greenland ice loss is accelerating (Velicogna 2009, van den Broeke et al 2009)
* Glaciers are shrinking globally at an accelerating rate (WGMS 2008)
* Arctic sea-ice loss is accelerating with the loss rate exceeding model forecasts by around a factor of 3 (Stroeve 2007).
* The height of the tropopause is increasing (Santer 2003, press release)
* Jet streams are moving poleward (Archer 2008, Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
* The tropical belt is widening (Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
* There is an increasing trend in record hot days versus record cold temperatures with currently twice as many record hot days than record cold temperatures (Meehle 2009, see press release).
The Climategate controversy hasn't even touched upon the empirical evidence indicating that human activity is the cause of recent warming:
* Humans are emitting CO2 at such rates that atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level over the past 800,000 years (Brook 2008). The rate of increase is the fastest in 22,000 years (Joos 2008)
* Satellites measure less infrared radiation escaping out to space at the wavelengths that CO2 absorb energy (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007)
* Surface measurements find more infrared radiation returning back to the Earth's surface (Philipona 2004), specifically at the wavelengths that CO2 absorb energy (Evans 2006)
One cannot deny that some of the Climategate emails are embarrassing for the scientists involved. Their comments and behaviour shouldn't be swept under the carpet and more transparency in climate science is a good thing. However, using quote-mined emails to disregard an entire scientific field is not the behaviour of people genuinely seeking to understand how our climate works. It is, on the other hand, a stupendous act of cognitive dissonance.
UPDATE 8/12/2009: Things Break has emailed me a few other pieces of evidence I'd overlooked:
* A shift towards earlier seasons (Stine 2009)
* Lake and river ice cover throughout the Northern Hemisphere are freezing later and breaking up earlier (Magnuson 2000, Hodgkins 2005)
* Changes to physical and biological systems across the globe are consistent with warming temperatures (Rosenzweig 2008)
* Cooling and contraction of the upper atmosphere consistent with predicted effects of increasing greenhouse gases (Lastovicka 2008)
* Pitcher-plant mosquitoes are genetically evolving to adapt to shifting seasons (Bradshaw 2001) |
"Been weeks since this evidence was posted. The silence is deafening...." |
Since much of that is based on discredited science and models the only response is to ignore it, until untainted data comes out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Since much of that is based on discredited science and models the only response is to ignore it, until untainted data comes out. |
...and all of your sources are tainted deliberate misinformation funded by Exxon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
...and all of your sources are tainted deliberate misinformation funded by Exxon. |
You are drowning in Kool-aid. Whenever a new study comes out that, say, points to cloud-cover affected by solar irradiation as a major player in warming, people always say "Ah, it's funded by Exxon! It's biased!"
First off, get your facts straight..Exxon stopped funding this stuff years ago. Bad PR (The climate change that got them was the climate of intimidation).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/
Second off, the $23odd million Exxon put into funding pales in comparison to the BILLIONS that the US alone spends every year on Climate research (I already touched upon this issue, either in this thread of the other one). The Carbon credit market was projected (before the resurgence of skepticism to AGW) to be the single largest traded commodity, with a market worth estimated in the trillions.
We went over the intimidation and the methods of getting grants - admitted by the "fathers" of the climatology and global warming paradigms.
As a scientist, your bread is buttered on the side of AGW. If it's disproven, the international crisis is gone and so is the funding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmuns
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
Location: earth
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thecount wrote: |
| Quote: |
...and all of your sources are tainted deliberate misinformation funded by Exxon. |
You are drowning in Kool-aid. |
your kool-aid cup is just as full. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
your kool-aid cup is just as full. |
Elaborate? I've been supporting my statements with fact. The AGW cultists here have been making up colossal falsehoods that I have asked time and again for verification on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thecount wrote: |
First off, get your facts straight..Exxon stopped funding this stuff years ago. |
ExxonMobil continuing to fund climate sceptic groups, records show
Guardian July 1st, 2009
Records show ExxonMobil gave hundreds of thousands of pounds to lobby groups that have published 'misleading and inaccurate information' about climate change.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding
Group promoting climate skepticism has extensive ties to Exxon-Mobil
Dec 3 , 2009
The organization is called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), apparently named after the UN coalition International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). An investigation into the group reveals its numerous links to Exxon-Mobil..
http://rawstory.com/2009/12/climate-skeptic-group-nipcc-extensive-ties-exxonmobil/
Exxon still funding climate skeptics
USA Today 5/19/2007
The company still funds about 40 "skeptic groups," according to the report from Greenpeace, but Exxon disputed that many of the organizations were "global warming deniers."
The groups listed include the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the National Black Chamber of Commerce.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-05-18-greenpeace-exxon_N.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ...Still waiting for your apologies for lying, Mr Count. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was wrong, looks like Exxon is still funding a few of them. My apologies. I feel that this egregious error should be brought to light fully:
The list of every paper contributed to by Exxon after their end-of-2005 announcement onwards:
(http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/investor_issues_contributedpapers.aspx)
1. Barker, T., Bashmakov, I., Alharthi, A., Amann, M., Cifuentes, L., Drexhage, J., Duan, M., Edenhofer, O., Flannery, B., Grubb, M., Hoogwijk, M., Ibitoye, F. I., Jepma, C. J. and Pizer, W. A. (2007). Mitigation from a cross-sectoral perspective, in Climate Change 2007: Mitigation, Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave and L. A. Meyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
It's a pro-warming IPCC study.
2. Kheshgi, H. S. 2007. Probabilistic estimates of climate change: methods, assumptions and examples, in Human-Induced Climate Change: An Interdisciplinary Assessment, eds. M. E. Schlesinger, H. S. Kheshgi, J. B. Smith et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49-61.
Study done by Copenhagen Consensus on Climate, whose official position is "Global warming is real, it is caused by man-made CO2 emissions, and we need to do something about it." (http://fixtheclimate.com/)
3. Imbus, S., Orr, F. M., Kuuskraa, V. A., Kheshgi, H., Bennaceur, K., Gupta, N., Rigg, A., Hovorka, S., Myer, L. and Benson, S. 2006. Critical issues in CO2 capture and storage: findings of the SPE advanced technology workshop (ATW) on carbon sequestration. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE-102968.
Study intro reveals that they are also AGW-proponents:
| Quote: |
"Current and projected rates of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels may lead to changes in global climate with significant impact. Whereas improved energy efficiency and renewable energy will play growing roles in this century, fossil fuels will continue to meet the majority of energy needs for decades to come (IEA/OECD World Energy Outlook 2004). Even with technical advances and changes in the energy mix and its efficient use, there is an expanding gap over the present century between projected emissions and those emissions levels needed to stabilize atmospheric CO2 to desired levels (Edmonds et al., 2004)1."
|
http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=SPE-102968-MS&soc=SPE
4. Kheshgi, H., Cappelen, F., Crookshank, S., Heilbrunn, A., Lee, A., Mikus, T., Robson, W., Senior, B., Stileman, T. and Warren, L. 2006. Carbon dioxide capture and geological storage: contributing to climate change solutions. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE-98583-PP.
It�s Al Gore�s wet dream, a pro-Co2 capture study. There�s nothing in here anti-warming at all...it only talks about the benefits of Co2 capture to save our environment.
http://www.battelle.org/news/06/CCS_Climate_Change06.pdf
5. R. Bose and H. Kheshgi, Review Eds., 2007. Transport and its infrastructure, in Climate Change 2007: Mitigation, Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave and L. A. Meyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Another IPCC report with an objective of achieving the �stabilization of greenhouse gas.� http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter1.pdf
Nothing anti-warming in here.
6. Schlesinger, M. E., Kheshgi, H., Smith, J. B., de la Chesnaye, F. C., Reilly, J. M., Wilson, T. and Kolstad, C., Eds., 2007. Human-Induced Climate Change: An Interdisciplinary Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 426 pages.
Finally, the compilation! Collection of mostly pro-AGW data, much of it on both sides outdated, sponsored by Exxon. Other sponsors included the US Department of Energy, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Science Foundation.
http://books.google.com/books?id=sB1xIr9KKK8C&dq=Human-Induced+Climate+Change:+An+Interdisciplinary+Assessment&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=ILZQuISELE&sig=uXsq25sLUoDqPANr3MQpGsyR3TU&hl=en&ei=pWg0S-mpG-SdtweMpZWBDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false
As far as your point that
| Quote: |
| ��and all of your sources are tainted deliberate misinformation funded by Exxon.� |
, unless you wish to argue that AGW is deliberate misinformation, it seems you�ve been wrong for years.
As for groups such as the nonpartisan CATO institute or the Heritage Foundation or National Black Chamber of Commerce, they are funded for their policies on economics and the free market. Climate is not their main issue. Does the fact that Toyota funded CATO make it an AGW skeptic? What about it�s funding of http://www.coolglobes.com/sponsors.php?
Funding specific studies is one thing � studies that we have seen are all, amazingly, AGW proponents since Exxon�s announcement. But when it comes to large organizations that deal with a myriad of issues, the focus of which is not global warming, there really isn�t a problem. What about GM? http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/31/fedex-gm-microsoft-toyota-visa-and-walmart-support-cato-which-is-buying-expensive-global-warming-denier-ads-attacking-obama/ is telling everyone to boycott all the companies associated with CATO, but since we bailed out GM, aren�t YOU helping fund CATO?
One last thing:
| Quote: |
| ...Still waiting for your apologies for lying, Mr Count. |
That reminds me...
| Quote: |
| thats true but the other factors haven't changed in recent decades, so we can't blame them, can we? Its only massively increased human-caused emissions of greenhouse gasses (CO2 isn't the only one) that we can point the finger at. |
| Quote: |
As it is now, the only measurable change associated with the present warming has been a rise in CO2. |
Both of these are your comments in the other thread. In each case, I have challenged you to qualify them. Your latest post again dodges these challenges. I proved I wasn't lying. Please do the same. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 1:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let us ignore for a moment the fact that the author has spent time with organisations funded by exxon.
His methodology is flawed, as explained here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/
This is the same paper as quoted above. Why quote it twice?
This is a natural cyclical phenomenon that has not changed in recent decades. Its still doing the same as it always has. So why present it as a cause of global warming over the past century?
You are positing the above as potential causes for climate change?
They are symptoms, not causes.
They only show that warming is taking place, nothing more.
Rising human CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions, however, are identifiable causes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Since much of that is based on discredited science and models the only response is to ignore it, until untainted data comes out. |
...and all of your sources are tainted deliberate misinformation funded by Exxon. |
The CRU scientists (the ones who wrote those e-mails) are funded by Exxon?
The CRU computer techician who said that the computer models and data (the ones that many of your sources rely on) were messed up beyond repair...he was on Exxon's payroll as well?
Wow, you learn something new everyday...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Let us ignore for a moment the fact that the author has spent time with organisations funded by exxon.
|
Forget the whole "studies funded by Exxon" thing, you are getting seriously desperate now. So now an author need merely have been associated somehow with Exxon at some point in the past, through however many degrees of separation, and he is anathema?
You sure don't have a problem quoting Realclimate.org of the widely-discredited hockey-stick-map (hide the medieval warm period!) fame. A fanatically partisan organization hosted by EMS/Arlie Schardt, former communication director for Al Gore (read: person who stands the most to gain from global warming). The website has so extremely left-wing connections through Betsy Ensley / Fenton Communications that it is difficult to list, but among their fair and balanced operations are WomenAgainstBush.org and MoveOn.org. Yes, the Soros MoveOn.org.
Whatever you have against Exxon (who I just proved last post was funding papers that were pro-AGW), it pales in comparison to the astounding partisanship and bias on RealClimate. How can you invalidate something on the grounds of bias when RC is your trusted source? It's an organization inextricably bound to the most extreme proponents of AGW and proven time and again to both censor dissenting comments and stifle the peer review and debate that it declares so important (http://climateaudit.org/2005/10/29/is-gavin-schmidt-honest/)
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/warming_blog_realclimate_run_b.html
I guess that's how it works though; if someone worked for a foundation in the past that once got grant money for Exxon, they are biased beyond saving. But it's fine to be run by the people who have demonstrated not only extreme bias, but also have very clear motives as far as what they gain from AGW?
It's easy to declare someone's methodology as flawed and the argument settled when you have an established policy of blocking not only dissenting comments, but replies from the article authors on your website.
As for their methods of proving him wrong? They admit to using a different data set (Wielecki 2002) for their reconstruction. That should be a warning bell already. The differences alone between the original Wielecki and revised Wielecki numbers would create a massively different graph, especially when you factor in that they changed the graph parameters based on�that�s right� �reasonable� magnitudes.
What this means, translated, is that the parameters from this graph (of different data) will be different, as well.
| Quote: |
| I programmed up his model myself, but chose the set of adjustable parameters based on compatibility with observations constraining reasonable magnitudes for these parameters. |
From a completely different graph with different parameters, he works backwards to �discover� an applied -0.4c skew, but of course there�s a skew � he�s using different numbers!
So to �prove� that the graph was faulty, he uses a DIFFERENT number set�and does not even compare it on the same parameters! There is no inherent proof of anything in that, other than the obvious: different numbers + different parameters reveal different curves.
The best part? RC admits that such a correlation does exist. It blames it on Co2, but IT ADMITS THAT THE CORRELATION IS THERE, further proving your claim that only Co2 levels can be accounted as false! The best part is that they do not even offer an argument for AGW in the face of this admission, but rather a "one cannot exclude the possibility."
| Quote: |
| Finally, even insofar as some part of climate change could be ascribed to long term cloud changes associated with the PDOI and SOI, one cannot exclude the possibility that those changes are driven by the warming � in other words a feedback |
That�s their defense? �One cannot exclude the possibility...?� So they (and the IPCC) have systematically dismissed trends that have not even been disproven in THEIR eyes.
| Quote: |
This is a natural cyclical phenomenon that has not changed in recent decades. Its still doing the same as it always has. So why present it as a cause of global warming over the past century?
|
From the first �graph:
�NASA-funded Earth Science researchers have discovered that during periods of increased solar activity much of the United States becomes cloudier, possibly because the jet stream in the troposphere moves northward causing changes to regional climate patterns.�
Lets look at some of these �natural phenomenons that [have] not changed in recent decades.�
You may add this to the list of measurable non-CO2 factors consistent with temperature trends:
http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=8012 :
| Quote: |
| "My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century," Lu said. "Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming." |
| Quote: |
"Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases, has decreased around 2000," Lu said. "Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate."
...
In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations.
...
As well, there is no solid evidence that the global warming from 1950 to 2000 was due to CO2. Instead, Lu notes, it was probably due to CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays. And from 1850 to 1950, the recorded CO2 level increased significantly because of the industrial revolution, while the global temperature kept nearly constant or only rose by about 0.1 C. |
| Quote: |
You are positing the above as potential causes for climate change?
They are symptoms, not causes.
|
What proof do you have of that? Oh, that�s right, none. Even the most fanatical of the AGW clan cannot dismiss it as symptomatic�they can only make a weak argument that it is still potentially feedback.
| Quote: |
| even insofar as some part of climate change could be ascribed to long term cloud changes associated with the PDOI and SOI, one cannot exclude the possibility that those changes are driven by the warming � in other words a feedback |
So we find ourselves here again, where YOUR OWN SOURCES disagree with your words. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
