HistoryNet.com RSS
ArmchairGeneral.com RSS

HistoryNet.com Articles
America's Civil War
American History
Aviation History
Civil War Times
MHQ
Military History
Vietnam
Wild West
World War II

ACG Online
ACG Magazine
Stuff We Like
War College
History News
Tactics 101
Carlo D'Este
Books

ACG Gaming
Boardgames
PC Game Reviews

ACG Network
Contact Us
Our Newsletter
Meet Our Staff
Advertise With Us

Sites We Support
HistoryNet.com
StreamHistory.com
Once A Marine
The Art of Battle
Game Squad
Mil. History Podcast
Russian Army - WW2
Achtung Panzer!
Mil History Online

Go Back   Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History > Happening Now > Politics Central

Notices and Announcements

Politics Central An archive of discussions of a political nature that took place here.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old 25 Oct 10, 13:18
Mountain Man's Avatar
Mountain Man Mountain Man is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Greatest Spy Movies Campaign Best Pin-Up Of World War II 
Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C Tournament 1 and preceding Mini-Polls 
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado Rocky Mts, USA
Posts: 69,222
Mountain Man has disabled reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
When did the climate debate stop being about science?

I have heard a shed load about the climate and no longer know what to think.

My balls tell me everyone involved is lying.
Your crystal ones, or those biological ones that look like prunes in a tea bag?
__________________
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?
  #17  
Old 26 Aug 13, 04:06
ralfy's Avatar
ralfy ralfy is offline
Staff Sergeant
United_States
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Moonachie
Posts: 149
ralfy has disabled reputation
It stopped being science when oil companies and others began to fund denialist groups and skeptics.

The irony is that when skeptics did start funding BEST, which they argued would come up with an independent study concerning global warming, they got the shock of their lives when BEST ended up confirming what NAS and others said.
  #18  
Old 26 Aug 13, 05:36
Johan Banér's Avatar
Johan Banér Johan Banér is offline
General of the Forums
Sweden
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Uppsala
Posts: 6,237
Johan Banér is a glorious beacon of light [700]
Johan Banér is a glorious beacon of light [700] Johan Banér is a glorious beacon of light [700] Johan Banér is a glorious beacon of light [700] Johan Banér is a glorious beacon of light [700] Johan Banér is a glorious beacon of light [700] Johan Banér is a glorious beacon of light [700] Johan Banér is a glorious beacon of light [700] Johan Banér is a glorious beacon of light [700] Johan Banér is a glorious beacon of light [700] Johan Banér is a glorious beacon of light [700] Johan Banér is a glorious beacon of light [700] Johan Banér is a glorious beacon of light [700] Johan Banér is a glorious beacon of light [700] Johan Banér is a glorious beacon of light [700]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
When did the climate debate stop being about science?

I have heard a shed load about the climate and no longer know what to think.

My balls tell me everyone involved is lying.
A line between a traditional postivistic view of science and political activism was crossed back in the 1960's already, when the scientists decided just doing the science wasn't going to suffice IF they found some worrying stuff that would need a long time to adress, and doing to would require political action.

Problem:
Data indicating possibly catastrophic climate change at some tipping point in the not-to-distant future starts to accumulate. According to the traditional division of labour between science and politics, the scientists say nothing until they are 100% totally certain.

According to the traditional model they might end up doing 50 years of research, only to, if their initial suspiscions were correct, then have to declare to the world that the tipping point occured 20 years ago, of this they are 100% completely certain, there is nothing for anyone to do, and we are all dead, thank you very much. Not unsurprisingly a bunch of them decided that wasn't going to be good enough for them.

For all that badmouthing of the climate researchers going on about the possibly disastrous effects of climate change, the above should be closer to the original problem they recognised rather a long time ago, than the more common conspiracy theories. They are in essence acting in good faith, about a potential problem which if it isn't going away, has the potential to screw us all well and good, and where effective counter-measures — if it is real — is going to require long-term sustained political effort on hitherto unprecedented scale.

The Ivory Tower is a nice image, but it was never real. Science has always been heterogenous and political, never pure or disinterested. People mostly complain about it losing its way when they to their surprise find themselves at the receiving end of some of its conclusions, and it turns out its going to cost them, one way or another.
  #19  
Old 26 Aug 13, 10:53
Mountain Man's Avatar
Mountain Man Mountain Man is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Greatest Spy Movies Campaign Best Pin-Up Of World War II 
Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C Tournament 1 and preceding Mini-Polls 
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado Rocky Mts, USA
Posts: 69,222
Mountain Man has disabled reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
When did the climate debate stop being about science?

I have heard a shed load about the climate and no longer know what to think.

My balls tell me everyone involved is lying.
Ask Doc. He was the one to claim that the science is junk science and to label it political.
__________________
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?
  #20  
Old 26 Aug 13, 11:40
slick_miester's Avatar
slick_miester slick_miester is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign 
 
Real Name: Marc
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 24,887
slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Doctor View Post
Very few of the scientists on either side are lying. It's more like the story of the five blind men and the elephant.
I don't know. I mean, about 1998 the IPCC came out that the sun's influence over the earth's climate was negligible -- during a year when increasing solar activity damaged several communications satellites, and caused at least one network to go down for a week. Clearly solar EM emissions influence events here on earth, including climate, and for the IPCC to merely write that off while dozens of scientists are working very hard trying to expand our body of knowledge about the sun strikes me as extremely arrogant. I can't figure any other way to view that.
__________________
I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison
Sponsored Links

  #21  
Old 26 Aug 13, 11:55
The Doctor's Avatar
The Doctor The Doctor is online now
General of the Forums
Pirate
Distinguished Service Award ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Summer Campaign 
Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Spy Movies Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
 
Real Name: Dave
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 46,799
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralfy View Post
It stopped being science when oil companies and others began to fund denialist groups and skeptics.

The irony is that when skeptics did start funding BEST, which they argued would come up with an independent study concerning global warming, they got the shock of their lives when BEST ended up confirming what NAS and others said.
Wrong on all counts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Doctor View Post
The media hype of this story is a trifecta of logical fallacy...
  1. A strawman.
  2. A non sequitur
  3. A total ignorance of the subject matter.
No competent skeptic has ever argued that the average surface temperature of the Earth hasn’t risen since the early 1600′s. No one is arguing that the Earth’s climate hasn’t warmed over the last 400 years.



The general warming trend in the instrumental record (~1850-2011) doesn’t invalidate the lack of warming since 2001-2003.

No increase in Ocean Heat Content since at least 2003...



No "global warming" in the Climategate CRU's HadCRUT3 since at least 2001...



I’ve never had much of a problem with HadCRUT3, apart from their misrepresentation of uncertainty. GISS is the one in which “the nature of the measurements obtained” appears to have been improperly influenced “so that the key evidence can be obtained.” BEST has done the best job so far in quantifying the uncertainties in the data and methods... But they haven't performed a true reanalysis of the raw data.

HadCRUT3 and OHC (Levitus) indicate no warming over the last decade – But that doesn’t mean that the millennial-scale warm up since ~1600 AD has ended. "Global warming" on a millenial scale will probably continue for another 100 years or so...



BEST used the same monthly Tmin/Tmax NCDC station averages as GISS, NOAA and CRU to produce similar results. This doesn’t invalidate the siting problems with most of the surface station data. It doesn’t even address it. If you want to see a genuine re-analysis of the raw data rather than just another Tmin/Tmax rehashing, see:

J.-L. Le Mouël et al., Evidence for a solar signature in 20th-century temperature data from the USA and Europe, C. R. Geoscience (2008)1.

None of BEST's "major new analysis" has been published in peer-reviewed journals. This is nothing more than a pre-peer review PR campaign. Funny how the peer-reviewed re-analysis of J.-L. Le Mouël et al., 2008 merited no headlines apart from WUWT and other skeptic outlets, while BEST’s non-peer-reviewed rehashing is in THREE INCH headlines around the world.

On top of all of that, BEST concluded that the “human component of global warming may be somewhat overstated." The media have built a strawman out of BEST's rediscovery of a general warming trend since the 1800's and ignored BEST's demonstration of a "strong correlation between North Atlantic temperature cycles lasting decades, and the global land surface temperature."
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Doctor View Post
What the BEST data actually*says...



Prior to ~1945, the noise rapidly overwhelms the signal... The spatial and statistical uncertainty is far greater than the ostensibly real global warming.

Like all of the other surface records, the best BEST can say with certainty, is that the global warming of the late 20th century is real.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Doctor View Post
The reaction of skeptics to the BEST PR blitz wasn't too surprising... However this was surprising...
Nature pans BEST and Muller PR antics, prints letter from Dr. Singer

Results confirming climate change are welcome, even when released before peer review.

[...]

There was predictable grumbling at the media coverage from within the scientific community, which saw it as publicity in lieu of peer review. Reporters are more than happy to cover the story now, while it’s sexy, but will they cover it later, when the results are confirmed, adjusted or corrected in accordance with a thorough vetting? The short answer is no, many of them will not. Barring an extraordinary reversal of message, the wave of press coverage is likely to be only a ripple when the papers are finally published. And this is what upsets the purists: the communication of science in this case comes before the scientific process has run its course.
Even more surprising, Nature published a letter from Fred Singer...
Fred Singer said:
Dear Editors of Nature:

What a curious editorial [p.428, Oct.26} ? and how revealing of yr bias!
"Results confirming climate change are welcome, even when released before peer review."
(emphasis added)
You imply that contrary results are not welcomed by Nature. But this has been obvious for many years.


[...]

They included data from the same weather stations as the Climategate people, but reported that one-third showed cooling — not warming. They covered the same land area " less than 30% of the Earth?s surface " housing recording stations that are poorly distributed, mainly in the US and Western Europe. They state that 70% of US stations are badly sited and don't meet the standards set by government; the rest of the world is likely worse.

[...]

One last word: You evidently haven't read the four scientific BEST papers, submitted for peer review. There, the Berkeley scientists disclaim knowing the cause of the temperature increase reported by their project. They conclude, however: "The human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated." I commend them for their honesty and skepticism.
************************************************** ******************
S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere. He is co-author of Climate Change Reconsidered [2009 and 2011] and of Unstoppable Global Warming 2007.************************************************** *********************

This was downright shocking... The premiere Gorebot blog, Real Climate (AKA the Hockey Team) also dissed BEST... Real Climate pans BEST and Muller

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Doctor View Post
Almost a year after all of the headlines, none of the BEST team's work has been accepted for publication...
BERKELEY EARTH STUDY REFEREE REPORTS: On September 8 2011 I was asked by Journal of Geophysical Research to be a reviewer for a paper by Charlotte Wickham et al. presenting the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature ("BEST") analysis of the effect of urbanization on land surface temperatures. This work is mainly associated with Richard Muller and his various coauthors. I submitted my review just before the end of September 2011, outlining what I saw were serious shortcomings in their methods and arguing that their analysis does not establish valid grounds for the conclusions they assert. I suggested the authors be asked to undertake a major revision.

In October 2011, despite the papers not being accepted, Richard Muller launched a major international publicity blitz announcing the results of the "BEST" project. I wrote to him and his coauthor Judy Curry objecting to the promotional initiative since the critical comments of people like me were locked up under confidentiality rules, and the papers had not been accepted for publication. Richard stated that he felt there was no alternative since the studies would be picked up by the press anyway. Later, when the journal turned the paper down and asked for major revisions, I sought permission from Richard to release my review. He requested that I post it without indicating I was a reviewer for JGR. Since that was not feasible I simply kept it confidential.

On March 8 2012 I was asked by JGR to review a revised version of the Wickham et al. paper. I submitted my review at the end of March. The authors had made very few changes and had not addressed any of the methodological problems, so I recommended the paper not be published. I do not know what the journal's decision was, but it is 4 months later and I can find no evidence on the BEST website that this or any other BEST project paper has been accepted for publication. [Update July 30: JGR told me "This paper was rejected and the editor recommended that the author resubmit it as a new paper."]

On July 29 2012 Richard Muller launched another publicity blitz (e.g. here and here) claiming, among other things, that "In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects [including those related to urbanization and land surface changes] unduly biased our conclusions." Their failure to provide a proper demonstration of this point had led me to recommend against publishing their paper. This places me in an awkward position since I made an undertaking to JGR to respect the confidentiality of the peer review process, but I have reason to believe Muller et al.'s analysis does not support the conclusions he is now asserting in the press.

I take the journal peer review process seriously and I dislike being placed in the position of having to break a commitment I made to JGR, but the "BEST" team's decision to launch another publicity blitz effectively nullifies any right they might have had to confidentiality in this matter. So I am herewith releasing my referee reports. The first, from September 2011, is here and the second, from March 2012 is here.

Ross McKitrick
Apparently, BEST is still not good enough...
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Doctor View Post
Muller is at it again...

Muller on MSNBC – what he didn’t say was interesting


New Data, Old Claims About Volcanoes


The Conversion of a Climate Change Skeptic

Muller has never been a skeptic. None of BEST's papers have been accepted for publication. And the only climate scientist on the original BEST team, Dr. Judith Curry, thinks Muller's latest "confirmation" of AGW is nonsense...
Muller bases his ‘conversion’ on the results of their recent paper?

So, how convincing is the analysis in Rohde et al.’s new paper A new estimate of the average surface land temperature spanning 1753-2011? Their analysis is based upon curve fits to volcanic forcing and the logarithm of the CO2 forcing (addition of solar forcing did not improve the curve fit.)

I have made public statements that I am unconvinced by their analysis. I do not see any justification in their argument for making a stronger attribution statement than has been made by the IPCC AR4. I have written MANY posts that critique the IPCC’s attribution analysis. Here I try to give a sense of the challenges in attributing climate change to causal factors.

See her post here.

WUWT
BEST's papers were rejected by all of the prominent climate science publications including Nature and the AGU's Geophysical Research Leters.

A peer-reviwed journal literally had to be created to publish their work... GeoInformatics and GeoStatistics (GIGS - one letter removed from GIGO). This journal has been published exactly once (Q1 2013), with about half of the content coming from BEST.

Even then, the paper qualifies its conclusion about AGW with, "Our analysis does not rule out long-term trends due to natural causes."
  #22  
Old 26 Aug 13, 12:04
The Doctor's Avatar
The Doctor The Doctor is online now
General of the Forums
Pirate
Distinguished Service Award ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Summer Campaign 
Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Spy Movies Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
 
Real Name: Dave
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 46,799
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by slick_miester View Post
I don't know. I mean, about 1998 the IPCC came out that the sun's influence over the earth's climate was negligible -- during a year when increasing solar activity damaged several communications satellites, and caused at least one network to go down for a week. Clearly solar EM emissions influence events here on earth, including climate, and for the IPCC to merely write that off while dozens of scientists are working very hard trying to expand our body of knowledge about the sun strikes me as extremely arrogant. I can't figure any other way to view that.
If you strictly limit the potential forcing of the Sun to Total Solar Irradiance, you can't explain the warming of the late 20th century. You also can't explain much of the climate changes that occurred prior to the late 20th century.

The problem is that the natural fluctuations are poorly understood; and will remain so until we have over 1,000 years of instrumental records.

The hubris is in thinking one can confidently estimate the anthropogenic forcing without knowing in adequate detail what the climate was doing beforehand. They'll even admit this when they don't think anyone is paying attention...
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Doctor View Post
An interesting blog post by Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr...
October 27, 2011 · 7:00 am

Candid Comments From Global Warming Climate Scientists

There is a news release by Paul Voosen on Greenwire titled

Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming (Tuesday, October 25, 2011)

There are some interesting quotes from climate scientists in this article that highlight a large degree of uncertainty with respect to the climate system, and the human role in it, even among scientists closely involved with the IPCC reports. The long article focuses on the question

‘Why, despite steadily accumulating greenhouse gases, did the rise of the planet’s temperature stall for the past decade?”


[...]

From John Barnes [Barnes's specialty is measuring stratospheric aerosols].
“If you look at the last decade of global temperature, it’s not increasing,” Barnes said. “There’s a lot of scatter to it. But the [climate] models go up. And that has to be explained. Why didn’t we warm up?”
[...]

From Kevin Trenberth
The hiatus [in warming] was not unexpected. Variability in the climate can suppress rising temperatures temporarily, though before this decade scientists were uncertain how long such pauses could last. In any case, one decade is not long enough to say anything about human effects on climate; as one forthcoming paper lays out, 17 years is required.

For some scientists, chalking the hiatus up to the planet’s natural variability was enough. Temperatures would soon rise again, driven up inexorably by the ever-thickening blanket thrown on the atmosphere by greenhouse gases. People would forget about it.

But for others, this simple answer was a failure. If scientists were going to attribute the stall to natural variability, they faced a burden to explain, in a precise way, how this variation worked. Without evidence, their statements were no better than the unsubstantiated theories circulated by climate skeptics on the Internet.
[...]

From Susan Solomon

“What’s really been exciting to me about this last 10-year period is that it has made people think about decadal variability much more carefully than they probably have before,” said Susan Solomon, an atmospheric chemist and former lead author of the United Nations’ climate change report, during a recent visit to MIT.


[...]

From Jim Hansen

These revelations are prompting the science’s biggest names to change their views.

Indeed, the most important outcome from the energy hunt may be that researchers are chronically underestimating air pollution’s reflective effect, said NASA’s James Hansen, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Recent data has forced him to revise his views on how much of the sun’s energy is stored in the oceans, committing the planet to warming. Instead, he says, air pollution from fossil fuel burning, directly and indirectly, has been masking greenhouse warming more than anyone knew.


[...]

These extracts from the Greenwire article illustrate why the climate system is not yet well understood. The science is NOT solved.



LINK
The Gorebots are trying to try to explain this...



We're going into at least the 12th year of no global warming, possibly the 14th and NCAR's Kevin Trenberth says "one decade is not long enough to say anything about human effects on climate...17 years is required." Hey Kev... 17 years is right around the corner!

NASA-GISS Director James Hansen blames the lack of warming on the same thing that supposedly caused the warming... "

Recent data has forced him to revise his views on how much of the sun’s energy is stored in the oceans, committing the planet to warming. Instead, he says, air pollution from fossil fuel burning, directly and indirectly, has been masking greenhouse warming more than anyone knew." Jimbo is increasingly sounding like a literal creationist trying to explain the fossil record.

NOAA's Susan Solomon thinks it's great "that it has made people think about decadal variability much more carefully than they probably have before." Too bad Suzie didn't think of that before she and Mann hijacked IPCC AR 4 and "beat up" anyone who mentioned "decadal variability" and then went on to lie to the NOAA IG about it.
  #23  
Old 26 Aug 13, 12:21
slick_miester's Avatar
slick_miester slick_miester is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign 
 
Real Name: Marc
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 24,887
slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+] slick_miester has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Doctor View Post
Quote:
From Susan Solomon

“What’s really been exciting to me about this last 10-year period is that it has made people think about decadal variability much more carefully than they probably have before,” said Susan Solomon, an atmospheric chemist and former lead author of the United Nations’ climate change report, during a recent visit to MIT.
According to NASA:

Quote:
Monthly averages (updated monthly) of the sunspot numbers (181 kb JPEG image), (307 kb pdf-file), (62 kb text file) show that the number of sunspots visible on the sun waxes and wanes with an approximate 11-year cycle.
This information was known to this neophyte nearly twenty years ago. Why didn't the experts at IPCC know it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Doctor View Post
Quote:
From Jim Hansen

These revelations are prompting the science’s biggest names to change their views.

Indeed, the most important outcome from the energy hunt may be that researchers are chronically underestimating air pollution’s reflective effect, said NASA’s James Hansen, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Recent data has forced him to revise his views on how much of the sun’s energy is stored in the oceans, committing the planet to warming. Instead, he says, air pollution from fossil fuel burning, directly and indirectly, has been masking greenhouse warming more than anyone knew.
I take it that Mr Hansen is able to also definitively disprove Occam's Razor, as well.

We were warned of this, a very long time ago.

Quote:
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

Pres Dwight D Eisenhower, Farewell Address, 17 Jan 1961
__________________
I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

Last edited by slick_miester; 26 Aug 13 at 12:26..
  #24  
Old 26 Aug 13, 12:33
The Doctor's Avatar
The Doctor The Doctor is online now
General of the Forums
Pirate
Distinguished Service Award ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Summer Campaign 
Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Spy Movies Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
 
Real Name: Dave
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 46,799
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by slick_miester View Post
According to NASA:



This information was known to this neophyte nearly twenty years ago. Why didn't the experts at IPCC know it?



I take it that Mr Hansen is able to also definitively disprove Occam's Razor, as well.

We were warned of this, a very long time ago.
The sunspot cycles don't affect TSI very much... Even though the length of the cycle does correlate fairly well with climate change.

The 11-year (Schwabe) cycle can last longer than 12 years or be shorter than 9 years. When the cycle is short, we have warming. When the cycle is long, we have cooling.

The total number of sunspots also has a good correlation with climate. More suspots correlate with warming and less sunspots correlate with cooling.

The problem is that no one has been able to clearly demonstrate a physical mechanism to ascribe causality... yet. However, quiet progress is being made in this area.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Doctor View Post
The biggest interglacial driver of albedo change is cloud cover. Low cloud cover, in particular, is very likely to be the primary driver of Holocene climate changes.

See...

The SKY experiment

...and...

The CLOUD experiment

...to see how subtle oscillations of solar activity could be major drivers of climate change via modulation of the GCR flux and low cloud formation.
Ike's other warning somehow became a lost footnote in history...

Last edited by The Doctor; 26 Aug 13 at 12:40..
  #25  
Old 26 Aug 13, 12:38
Hida Akechi's Avatar
Hida Akechi Hida Akechi is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Real Name: Jeff Allison
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Noblesville, IN
Posts: 6,297
Hida Akechi is a jewel in the rough [500]
Hida Akechi is a jewel in the rough [500] Hida Akechi is a jewel in the rough [500] Hida Akechi is a jewel in the rough [500] Hida Akechi is a jewel in the rough [500] Hida Akechi is a jewel in the rough [500] Hida Akechi is a jewel in the rough [500] Hida Akechi is a jewel in the rough [500] Hida Akechi is a jewel in the rough [500] Hida Akechi is a jewel in the rough [500]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralfy View Post
It stopped being science when oil companies and others began to fund denialist groups and skeptics.

The irony is that when skeptics did start funding BEST, which they argued would come up with an independent study concerning global warming, they got the shock of their lives when BEST ended up confirming what NAS and others said.
A bit of thread necromancy just to have your facts blown up in your face?
__________________
The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?
  #26  
Old 26 Aug 13, 12:42
The Doctor's Avatar
The Doctor The Doctor is online now
General of the Forums
Pirate
Distinguished Service Award ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Summer Campaign 
Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Spy Movies Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
 
Real Name: Dave
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 46,799
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hida Akechi View Post
A bit of thread necromancy just to have your facts blown up in your face?


  #27  
Old 26 Aug 13, 12:47
Hida Akechi's Avatar
Hida Akechi Hida Akechi is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Real Name: Jeff Allison
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Noblesville, IN
Posts: 6,297
Hida Akechi is a jewel in the rough [500]
Hida Akechi is a jewel in the rough [500] Hida Akechi is a jewel in the rough [500] Hida Akechi is a jewel in the rough [500] Hida Akechi is a jewel in the rough [500] Hida Akechi is a jewel in the rough [500] Hida Akechi is a jewel in the rough [500] Hida Akechi is a jewel in the rough [500] Hida Akechi is a jewel in the rough [500] Hida Akechi is a jewel in the rough [500]
Appropriate

Ralfy is just fishing for a flame war.
__________________
The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?
  #28  
Old 26 Aug 13, 13:08
The Doctor's Avatar
The Doctor The Doctor is online now
General of the Forums
Pirate
Distinguished Service Award ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Summer Campaign 
Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Spy Movies Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
 
Real Name: Dave
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 46,799
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hida Akechi View Post
Appropriate

Ralfy is just fishing for a flame war.
He's "gonna need a bigger boat"...

  #29  
Old 29 Aug 13, 07:05
ralfy's Avatar
ralfy ralfy is offline
Staff Sergeant
United_States
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Moonachie
Posts: 149
ralfy has disabled reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Doctor View Post
Wrong on all counts.
Wrong on all counts.

AGW confirmed by the NAS:

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/

And confirmed by BEST:

http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings

And that's BEST which was funded by deniers:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...bon-pollution/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/zingular...-up-with-this/
  #30  
Old 29 Aug 13, 08:58
The Doctor's Avatar
The Doctor The Doctor is online now
General of the Forums
Pirate
Distinguished Service Award ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Summer Campaign 
Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Spy Movies Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
 
Real Name: Dave
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 46,799
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralfy View Post
Here's more data laughing at you...
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Doctor View Post
Restating your previous fallacious assertions and appeals to authority does not support your argument.

The latest nail in the AGW coffin was just published in Nature, one of the journals that rejected BEST's papers...



The ENSO cycle can explain almost all of the climate change since 1950, including the lack of warming since 1998-2000.

Dr. Judith Curry, the only climate scientist on the BEST team, said:
Compare the temperature increase between 1975-1998 (main warming period in the latter part of the 20th century) for both POGA H and POGA C:

POGA H: 0.68C (natural plus anthropogenic)
POGA C: 0.4C (natural internal variability only)

I’m not sure how good my eyeball estimates are, and you can pick other start/end dates. But no matter what, I am coming up with natural internal variability associated accounting for significantly MORE than half of the observed warming.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/2...arming-hiatus/
Over the past few years, numerous peer-reviewed papers have demonstrated that almost all of the climate changes of the late 20th century can be attributed to changes in albedo (clouds and/or aerosols), variations in solar activity, the ENSO, the AMO and/or CFC's and that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is less than half of what they thought it was in 1988... Yet the IPCC are 95% certain that anthropogenic carbon emissions are the cause of climate change...
Sponsored Links

 

Please bookmark this thread if you enjoyed it!


Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 18:07.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.