User Tag List

First 91718192021 Last

Results 181 to 190 of 205

  1. #181
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    Could you stop the bad faith, please?


    1/ The site you quote doesn't agree at all with your curious interpretation.

    2/ You are obviously confusing or messing several studies, and different time scales.
    Even a 800 years gap is very short compared to the glaciation cycles (appr 5000 years/80000 years).
    -> http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publicati...lonTermIII.pdf

    "This sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO 2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing. First, the 800-year time lag is short in comparison with the total duration of the temperature and CO2 increases (5000 years). Second, the CO2 increase clearly precedes the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation (Fig. 3). "


    3/ The Scientists that showed the existence of this gap also explained that according to their models, CO2 is responsible for at least half of the warming occuring during an interglacial, thanks to its positive feedback.

    4/ You cannot make direct comparisons between "natural" deglaciation cycles and what is occuring today, since we have now nearly 400 ppm of CO2. This never happened before, even during interglacials. This is a totally new situation.

    5/ We have direct evidences of the greenhouse effect due to CO2 thanks to satellites.
    Have you read Lindzen's paper on the data from ERBE?
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  2. #182
    Senior Member vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w
    Socionics
    EII
    Posts
    321

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    If by "D-Day" you mean an all-out battle to beat back a rising tide of totalitarian ideology, I'm completely with you.
    That's exactly what I meant. I use the term D-day cause global warming requires that we collectively serve the same purpose for the first time in history. Needless to say that is like a miracle. We needed an international conscentious government ages ago.

    Kyoto & Kopenhagen are sideshows. The only thing that is set up there is a perverse system where Western industries can buy CO exhausts from 3rd world countries. It's really hopeless.

  3. #183
    Senior Member htb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    challenging scientific data
    Ask and ye shall receive!

    The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.

    The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.
    A positive step. Several hundred more strides to go!


    Quote Originally Posted by oberon
    If by "D-Day" you mean an all-out battle to beat back a rising tide of totalitarian ideology, I'm completely with you.
    Silence! Reduce your footprint or we take away your mulching-mower. Consensus says so.

  4. #184
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vince View Post
    I use the term D-day cause global warming requires that we collectively serve the same purpose for the first time in history. Needless to say that is like a miracle. We needed an international conscentious government ages ago.
    Yep, there's the totalitarian ideology I was talking about... "Unite under one-world government, or die."

    It's funny how every environmental crisis that comes along requires that I submit to somebody else's agenda.

  5. #185
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    LR - this goes back to what the majority of climate scientists are saying. Look at longer term trends, not short term ones. In the short run, temperatures may stay stable but in the longer run, they are rising and this trend is confirmed by climatologists, including the Mojib Latif who has been mentioned here before. This is exactly what they're saying -- looking at short term trends misses the big pattern and is inaccurate in terms of predictive ability.
    You mean longer term trends such as the fact that 6 of the ten hottest years since 1880 happened before 1954, and that 1934 was the hottest year on record?

    Global Warming as Mass Neurosis - WSJ.com

    I'm not doubting the greenhouse effect and man-made global warming as a general scientific principle, merely the capacity for scientists to predict future global warming trends accurately enough to warrant drastic measures or doomsday prophecies at this point, particularly since NASA* measurements that we now know were misinterpreted-and subsequently referenced in good faith by multitudes of scientists-were previously used to portray global warming as a far more immediate threat.

    *NASA might be composed of geniuses and highly trained specialists, but these are also the people who ruined a mission by forgetting about something as obvious as metric system conversions.

    Edit: Below is a link to a good rebuttal of the link posted above; as I mentioned earlier, my main contention is a.) there is no consensus on future global warming trends (other than that some degree of long-term global warming will materialize, that is), nor of the consequences of the same, and b.) the Kyoto Protocol and similar plans are counter-productive in terms of decreasing aggregate amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere due to a combination of political and economic variables that cannot realistically be overcome.

    Kevin Grandia | Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens' Sick Souled Neurosis
    Last edited by lowtech redneck; 12-05-2009 at 05:06 PM. Reason: new information

  6. #186
    Allergic to Mornings ergophobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by htb View Post
    Ask and ye shall receive!

    A positive step.
    That's the best you can do? Really?

    That's challenging scientific evidence that the MET office, one of three offices that contribute to UN policy suggestions has decided to REEXAMINE the raw data as a good faith measure because of the emails leaked? Have they said that the data was wrong or definitively tampered with? NO. Have they said that they expect to find opposing trends? NO.

    From the same article:

    The Met Office is confident that its analysis will eventually be shown to be correct. However, it says it wants to create a new and fully open method of analysing temperature data.

    The development will add to fears that influential sceptics in other countries, including the US and Australia, are using the controversy to put pressure on leaders to resist making ambitious deals for cutting CO2.
    Clearly, it is to support the ideal of complete transparency. From what angle can you use this as definitive scientific evidence in opposition to the climate change thesis is mind boggling.

    More or is this it?

  7. #187
    Allergic to Mornings ergophobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    You mean longer term trends such as the fact that 6 of the ten hottest years since 1880 happened before 1954, and that 1934 was the hottest year on record?

    Global Warming as Mass Neurosis - WSJ.com

    I'm not doubting the greenhouse effect and man-made global warming as a general scientific principle, merely the capacity for scientists to predict future global warming trends accurately enough to warrant drastic measures or doomsday prophecies at this point, particularly since NASA* measurements that we now know were misinterpreted-and subsequently referenced in good faith by multitudes of scientists-were previously used to portray global warming as a far more immediate threat.

    *NASA might be composed of geniuses and highly trained specialists, but these are also the people who ruined a mission by forgetting about something as obvious as metric system conversions.

    Edit: Below is a link to a good rebuttal of the link posted above; as I mentioned earlier, my main contention is a.) there is no consensus on future global warming trends (other than that some degree of long-term global warming will materialize, that is), nor of the consequences of the same, and b.) the Kyoto Protocol and similar plans are counter-productive in terms of decreasing aggregate amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere due to a combination of political and economic variables that cannot realistically be overcome.

    Kevin Grandia | Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens' Sick Souled Neurosis
    LR - you don't judge a trend by the outlyers alone. That's deciding to concentrate on five or six observations of over 200. That's doing exactly what you're warning against -- picking a few observations to make predictions that we just cannot do with accuracy (lack of global warming based on 10 of 200 observations)?? That is another way of pointing to a few misleading observations. The larger the sample, the more observations that point to the same trend, the more confidence we can have in the trend, right?

    No, all we can say and all that most climatologists are saying is that the long terms trends exist. In fact, 90%+ climatologists agree that these long term trends exist. Not temporary spikes and lows -- over 200 years, there is an increase in temperatures. Not only is there an increase, it is directly correlated with human activity, as you suggested.

    So, NASA's inefficiency or inaccuracy in one mission take away from the level of resources, expertise and skill the agency has to carry out this research altogether? That's not a good invalidation of their research. Doesn't add up. In addition, there are multiple sources of evidence that all point to the same conclusion repeatedly -- human activity affects the environment, temperatures, sea level, basic health of flora and fauna....how many sources of evidence will we dismiss on flimsy grounds to invalidate this basic trend being highlighted by all?

    WSJ is clearly a partisan newspaper so I would pay little attention to the title of the article itself -- it tells you how objective the analysis is. Let's look at the science itself that they point to -I'm happy to examine that as done above.

    You're right, we can't predict with any accuracy the exact temperature in the short run. The climatologists are NOT attempting to do that. However, we can predict with great accuracy the long term trend of rising temperatures and causal factors related to human activity. If we can do this with accuracy, why shouldn't we direct public policy towards resolving or ameliorating this long term trend?

    What exactly are the political and economic variables that are problematic with the Kyoto protocol? Let's look at that in more detail. What would be better suggestions for policy directed at lowering the impact of human activity on this trend? Pointing to inefficient solutions doesn't take away from the trend - how do we better address the problem?

  8. #188
    Allergic to Mornings ergophobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    It's a waste of time to present evidence to those blinded by confirmation bias and I try to use my time wisely.
    Right, of course. When we don't have compelling evidence, let's rely on distraction or melodrama.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Have you read Lindzen's paper on the data from ERBE?
    Have you read the myriad refutations of Lindezen's analysis of the data? Here's just one:
    RealClimate: Lindzen in Newsweek

    The best refutation is in the person's own words. No doubt, he holds against the idea that immediate action is required in terms of policy but here's what he does agree with, in an editorial written by him:
    Extra - WSJ.com

    First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true.
    So, even if we take this single study to hold - it's not unusual to have opposing trends found. It is a minority view among how many hundreds of studies that point in the opposite direction? Look at any issue of nature (here's one) for scientists across the world working on this and finding the connection between CO2 and temperature change.
    Climate Change: Halving Carbon Dioxide Emissions By 2050 Could Stabilize Global Warming

    Or, perhaps the National Academy of the Sciences?
    Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions PNAS

    Again, as stated before, CO2 emissions are just one part of the evidence and the argument on climate change. Are you suggesting we use cherry-picked evidence (one paper?!?) or we look at the larger trend?

  9. #189
    Senior Member htb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    Have they said that the data was wrong or definitively tampered with? . . . Have they said that they expect to find opposing trends?
    The e-mails manifest that CRU is a house of number-fudging Jacobins. Gosh, scientists are so confident, why even bother with methodical inquiry? Wait, that's the modus operandi for this machine. And stop asking rhetorical questions.

  10. #190
    Allergic to Mornings ergophobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by htb View Post
    The e-mails manifest that CRU is a house of number-fudging Jacobins. Gosh, scientists are so confident, why even bother with methodical inquiry? Wait, that's the modus operandi for this machine. And stop asking rhetorical questions.
    So, you didn't really have other evidence to offer, did you?

    P.S. Thanks for the advice on language - I'll use the linguistic devices I consider best.

Similar Threads

  1. What is some viable proof of Global Warming?
    By Blackout in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 05-25-2016, 09:40 PM
  2. Data on Global Warming is being Faked!!!!!!!!!
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 09-28-2015, 11:41 AM
  3. The Great Global Warming Swindle
    By reason in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 07-08-2015, 12:04 PM
  4. Conspiracy theories cluster - global warming hoax is among them.
    By Magic Poriferan in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-11-2012, 06:42 AM
  5. Global warming
    By Nocapszy in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 04-09-2008, 11:18 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO