I love the last paragraph, especially.
AGW is myth- its all for the money!
- Thread starter mello
- Start date
I love the last paragraph, especially.
Hey bruce :wave:
Sometimes I think there is really just one voice out there, logged in as several dozen different users. I guess it serves to stir the pot. Folks like Trippy will usually give them (him?) the benefit of the doubt, and start to introduce some of the deeper or more esoteric facts and data, and from there it can go just about anywhere, with the science guy continuing to expound on actual science while the AGW guy just trots out bogus cites. Andre seems to be less likely to go postal, but is being quite liberal with his aspersions against IPCC. Man, I wonder if any of its members ever predicted -- before Gore, that is -- that there would be this "grassroots" (or simulation thereof) reaction to their work.
The other thing that's been in my mind lately is how deftly the Right Wing has convinced average people that economics is something like doing a household budget (I was about to say balancing a checkbook but that skill has long since fallen into disuse). There is this phenomenal false ego coming from that side of the fence, that pretends to have all the answers to subjects that were -- in prior incarnations of pop right wing culture -- relegated to the experts. I suppose the web has everyone feeling empowered in ways that are not always constructive. Now they seem to be rather well equipped with skills in quote mining bogus sites as if there is no such thing as settled law -- everything is up for grabs, any piece of physical truth can be attacked as fraud or anything else, and just because some bogus site says so. And in recent decades "the economy" has become a household word, although I doubt 5% of naysayers can recall 5% of the content of their basic courses in economics (assuming you can find 5% of them who ever took economics).
I have to admit posting the grandkids photos was straight from any politician's playbook, as well as the appeal to "protect the children". How and why any of them are operating from the presumption that climate science is not about protecting the planet is beyond me. Judging by the age of those kids they've already had plenty of trips to the doctor's office, so it should be pretty well established in Andre's family that medical science is all about protecting them. How and why anyone would think that the pre-med students were receiving any different basic training in science than the ones who grew up to be climate experts is also beyond me. There is some kind of implicit wedge being driven between "good scientists" (e.g. pediatricians) and "mad scientists" which, of all people, are alleged to be the climate experts. Yeah, right. Those would be the scariest of fellow students, as we all remember, coming to class looking in their Charles Manson biker-dude personas, dragging chains and what not. Or I suppose we should have recognized them as the Norman Bates types, square bow ties and lurking in the shadows of the library near the stacks on meteorology, but peering out into the room thinking how they would like to take the pre-med students back to Mom's motel, murder them and keep the dessicated corpses around for company. This is of course predicated on the obvious loner types attracted to the study of something as mediochre as meteorology.
Funny how long this phenom is dragging out. I would have expected it to end with the demise of Bush, cowboy politics and all the scum that grew in the cesspool around him. It's also rather bizarre that the same antics have taken root in the Tory parties (or whatever they call themselves) around the world, with nearly the same dumb pseudoscience driving them as the kind used here in the States. That's why I often wonder if it's just a few folks pretending to be so many different people just to perpetuate the myth (talk about myth) of a grassroots drill Baby drill Tea Party style movement.
Who knows. But I think the basics of global warming has been covered in the textbooks for at least 20 years now -- longer if you consider the prior science dealing with the greenhouse effect. So just about everybody ought to know a little about it and of course with a little effort just about anybody (depending on technical literacy) ought to be able to find resources and data and be able to make sense of it.
These posters come in spurts. They seem to be correlate with the timing of elections, so even wonder if Andre was triggered by something he saw in local elections, or perhaps he stumbled onto some of the diatribes coming from another country during its political season.
Food for thought. I mean, the attacks on climate science have nothing but Right Wing invective behind them. There's never any science to support the claims, just innuendo and bogus claims. For once it would almost be nice to see some actual contrary science. I think Andre was hoping to attack the notion of the greenhouse effect (in the longer running thread) by dismantling the idea of modeling the Earth as a blackbody (something like that, I only caught the gist of it), which seems rather ludicrous. It ought to be sufficient to note that the amount of heat retained by the atmosphere is the only reason nights are warm in the tropics while the dark side of the moon is bitterly cold. I mean, these are measured from the same distance from the Sun. Once we've established that there is greenhouse effect, the rest just boils down to the polemic. And from there we get dragged back to economics 101 trying to piece together how such a highly systematic method for studying economies can be so brutally reduced to the "self-evident" result that investment in alternative energies supplies leads to economic collapse. Of course it's just another foregone conclusion. But to get there, Norman Bates has to be eyeing the Econ student across the table from the pre-med student, conjuring up some way to lure them both to the motel basement. Of course it ain't gonna happen. All of the graduating class will come out of the same basic programs with the same essential basic skills, there simply won't be any basis for one field of expert to denigrate the other based on quality of tools. They would be completely self-defeating, although that's not even what drives them. It's just the simple quest for understanding the world around them. The rest is styrofoam.
Which pretty well summarizes the basis for all AGW claims.
Sometimes I think there is really just one voice out there, logged in as several dozen different users. I guess it serves to stir the pot. Folks like Trippy will usually give them (him?) the benefit of the doubt, and start to introduce some of the deeper or more esoteric facts and data, and from there it can go just about anywhere, with the science guy continuing to expound on actual science while the AGW guy just trots out bogus cites. Andre seems to be less likely to go postal, but is being quite liberal with his aspersions against IPCC. Man, I wonder if any of its members ever predicted -- before Gore, that is -- that there would be this "grassroots" (or simulation thereof) reaction to their work.
The other thing that's been in my mind lately is how deftly the Right Wing has convinced average people that economics is something like doing a household budget (I was about to say balancing a checkbook but that skill has long since fallen into disuse). There is this phenomenal false ego coming from that side of the fence, that pretends to have all the answers to subjects that were -- in prior incarnations of pop right wing culture -- relegated to the experts. I suppose the web has everyone feeling empowered in ways that are not always constructive. Now they seem to be rather well equipped with skills in quote mining bogus sites as if there is no such thing as settled law -- everything is up for grabs, any piece of physical truth can be attacked as fraud or anything else, and just because some bogus site says so. And in recent decades "the economy" has become a household word, although I doubt 5% of naysayers can recall 5% of the content of their basic courses in economics (assuming you can find 5% of them who ever took economics).
I have to admit posting the grandkids photos was straight from any politician's playbook, as well as the appeal to "protect the children". How and why any of them are operating from the presumption that climate science is not about protecting the planet is beyond me. Judging by the age of those kids they've already had plenty of trips to the doctor's office, so it should be pretty well established in Andre's family that medical science is all about protecting them. How and why anyone would think that the pre-med students were receiving any different basic training in science than the ones who grew up to be climate experts is also beyond me. There is some kind of implicit wedge being driven between "good scientists" (e.g. pediatricians) and "mad scientists" which, of all people, are alleged to be the climate experts. Yeah, right. Those would be the scariest of fellow students, as we all remember, coming to class looking in their Charles Manson biker-dude personas, dragging chains and what not. Or I suppose we should have recognized them as the Norman Bates types, square bow ties and lurking in the shadows of the library near the stacks on meteorology, but peering out into the room thinking how they would like to take the pre-med students back to Mom's motel, murder them and keep the dessicated corpses around for company. This is of course predicated on the obvious loner types attracted to the study of something as mediochre as meteorology.
Funny how long this phenom is dragging out. I would have expected it to end with the demise of Bush, cowboy politics and all the scum that grew in the cesspool around him. It's also rather bizarre that the same antics have taken root in the Tory parties (or whatever they call themselves) around the world, with nearly the same dumb pseudoscience driving them as the kind used here in the States. That's why I often wonder if it's just a few folks pretending to be so many different people just to perpetuate the myth (talk about myth) of a grassroots drill Baby drill Tea Party style movement.
Who knows. But I think the basics of global warming has been covered in the textbooks for at least 20 years now -- longer if you consider the prior science dealing with the greenhouse effect. So just about everybody ought to know a little about it and of course with a little effort just about anybody (depending on technical literacy) ought to be able to find resources and data and be able to make sense of it.
These posters come in spurts. They seem to be correlate with the timing of elections, so even wonder if Andre was triggered by something he saw in local elections, or perhaps he stumbled onto some of the diatribes coming from another country during its political season.
Food for thought. I mean, the attacks on climate science have nothing but Right Wing invective behind them. There's never any science to support the claims, just innuendo and bogus claims. For once it would almost be nice to see some actual contrary science. I think Andre was hoping to attack the notion of the greenhouse effect (in the longer running thread) by dismantling the idea of modeling the Earth as a blackbody (something like that, I only caught the gist of it), which seems rather ludicrous. It ought to be sufficient to note that the amount of heat retained by the atmosphere is the only reason nights are warm in the tropics while the dark side of the moon is bitterly cold. I mean, these are measured from the same distance from the Sun. Once we've established that there is greenhouse effect, the rest just boils down to the polemic. And from there we get dragged back to economics 101 trying to piece together how such a highly systematic method for studying economies can be so brutally reduced to the "self-evident" result that investment in alternative energies supplies leads to economic collapse. Of course it's just another foregone conclusion. But to get there, Norman Bates has to be eyeing the Econ student across the table from the pre-med student, conjuring up some way to lure them both to the motel basement. Of course it ain't gonna happen. All of the graduating class will come out of the same basic programs with the same essential basic skills, there simply won't be any basis for one field of expert to denigrate the other based on quality of tools. They would be completely self-defeating, although that's not even what drives them. It's just the simple quest for understanding the world around them. The rest is styrofoam.
Which pretty well summarizes the basis for all AGW claims.
No, I don't suppose you do, I suppose you've lost this particular thread of the conversation:
I simply pointed out that, because of the superimposed series, the graph as displayed on the source you linked to was not the graph that appeared in the IPCC AR5 at any stage . Perhaps if you had clicked on one more link and followed it through to the Watts up with that blog you could have saved yourself the embarrasment.
Yes, because using trends based on datasets less than that aren't worth spit because with the interannual variability, 15 year periods are the absolute minimum required to determine significance of a trend at the 95% level. I've expounded in depth on this before on this forum, I even have a set of three datasets generated specifically to demonstrate the folly of trying to draw conclusions on ten years worth of data.
I don't remember if this used the GISS data set, or was based on randomly generated data, however...
Also this:
Was the last ten points of data in a 150 point data set generated using random noise superimposed on top of a secular increase and an 11 year sinusoidal cycle.
I downloaded the spreadsheet and had a look at it. I'd rather use GISS or HADCRUT-4, to be honest - I have GISS sitting on my computer and open in another window, so let's stick to that shall we?
All of this is beside the point, I was talking about the residual error of the temperature anomaly, not the temperature anomaly itself.
This image illustrates what I mean. I didn't have GISS when I prepared this two years ago, I hope to prepare something a little less casual tonight (although make no bones about it, great care went into preparing this and I did it as accurately as I could.
Baloney. 15 year periods can be cherry-picked just as easily as ten year periods. Refer back to my original 5 points:
The previous two similar events in the temperature record have been of 30 year duration (or there abouts)
As I said, I was talking about the residual error of the temperature anomaly compared to the linear regression of the full data set.
One of the first people to oppose the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming was Knut Ångström. He argued that the bands that carbon-dioxide absorbed in were already saturated by water absorption and so increasing ppCO[sub]2[/sub] would have no effect on the temperature. Although Quantum Mechanics suggested that the overlap was incomplete, this counter argument was not disproven until the '50s or '60s when the US government decided to get serious about spectroscopy and monitoring atmospheric chemistry. The objective was to monitor Russian nuclear weapons testing, but, as a result of this atmospheric scientists got more money and were able to colelct better and more accurate spectra and began to realize that Ångström was wrong.
This, incidentally, is why I try and cite papers from the '60s through to the '80s to counter arguments. The reasearch I have done into the history of the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis has lead me to the conclusion that every argument I have seen presented in opposition to the hypothesis was examined and discarded as being incorrect before the hypothesis was politicized by Nixon.
Some opinions here:
Climate Policy Trap
/]As Biofuel Demand Grows, So Do Guatemala’s Hunger Pangs
Fuel Poverty Britain.
Could you please provide empiric evidence that receding ice is caused by more CO2? How many more times has the ice receded during the Holocene without any additional CO2?
And of course you're more than welcome to falsify the null hypothesis.
The level of intellectual dishonesty is scary. The concept that science is the enemy doesn't bode well for the future. The scientific literature is under attack. Our constitutional democracy is under attack. The middle class is evaporating. Seditionists elected to the congress. Really dumb seditionists. The level of intellectual dishonesty is way to big. Bigger than ever before. Honesty isn't in vogue right now.
CO2 levels are rising:http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/programs/coop/scripps/img/img_scripps_co2_record.gif
. . . due to anthropogenic emissions:http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html
CO2 is a greenhouse gas: http://www.abelard.org/briefings/images/ipcc2013radiative_forcing.jpg
Warmer climate means ice recedes:http://oceansnorth.org/arctic-challenges
All pretty basic. (And the fact that ice melts at other times doesn't disprove any of the above.)
have you seen the movie idiocracy?
It's not really a null hypothesis.
the simple fact is that you have been shown that carbondioxide absorbs in the same band as the peak of earths longwave blackbody radiation emission, and nothing you have said there or anywhere else contradicts this observation.
But what does it prove, in what exactly is that empirical evidence hidden that CO2 causes signifiant or even catastrophic warming?
While we're at it, maybe also read "nineteen eighy four". Maybe see that the thought police is already abundantly present.
There is no such evidence since the term "catstrophic" is a purely emotional and subjective term. For many people in Kiribati AGW has been catastrophic; for a Canadian it might well be a non-event.
The evidence that anthropogenic gas emissions cause measurable and quantifiable warming is abundant.
That's what everybody keeps saying over and over again, but what exactly is the empirical evidence for that.
Nothing useful to add then? What's next? References to the religion of Al Gore? Could you act out a stereotype any more accurately? This kind of useless political rhetoric is a complete waste of my time.
The only other thing I can think of to say is 'careful what you wish for'.
Hmm, I don't even recall having said that and it's slightly off center anyway. But the null hypothesis suggest that radiative effect is more important for atmospheric cooling than for amospheric warming.
Simple harmonic motion tells us that carbondioxide absorbs em energy in the band emitted by the earth.
Conservation of mass tells us that for every 1kg of carbon burned 6kg of carbondioxide is produced.
The beer lambert law tells us that every kilogram of carbondioxide deposited in the atmosphere increases its optical depth at wavelengths carbondioxide absorbs, and so increases the amount of radiation emitted by the earth tgat is absorbed by the atmosphere.
Simple harmonic motion tells us that the energy absorbed by carbon dioxide is stored as kinetic energy by the molecules, which translates as heat.
All of which has been verified by empirical science.
I posted the list above. Which part do you disagree with?
Reduction in cooling = increase in warming.
Once again, Earth has cooled and warmed for 4.6 billion years. What makes us so sure that the last warming spike suddenly had different than the natural causes in the last say 4.599.999,950 years. What's the empiric evidence?
No it's about the increase in cooling. The more greenhouse gasses, the easier it can radiate energy out to space, cooling the atmosphere.
See my post.
A given molecule is free to radiate its excess energy in any direction consequently some proportion of the upwelling longwave energy emitted by the earth is absorbed by these molecules and emitted back towards the ground. This means that energy that would otherwise be lost to space in an ir transparent atmosphere is redirected back to and reabsorbed by the ground.
Yes, many things cause the earth to warm up and cool down.
It's been presented several times. You'll have to explain which part of AGW you disagree with if you wish to have an intelligent discussion. Just saying "I heard something on FOX News" (or the equivalent) isn't really a sufficient argument.
If you think that, you might have a fundamental misunderstanding about what greenhouse gases do. They cause LESS re-radiation into space.