Human Caused Global Warming Will Not Happen

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Mikemcc01
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 10:23 am

Post by Mikemcc01 »

seedload wrote:
Mikemcc01 wrote:It's not unprecedented in that spot. You cannot relate central Greenland (or Vostok for that matter) into a global proxy
You should restate that as you cannot relate central Greenland or Vostok to a global proxy UNLESS you are trying to show the correlation between CO2 and global temperature. Only then is it okay.
No, it just shows that polar sites have more variation than equatorial ones.

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Post by bcglorf »

Mikemcc01 wrote:
bcglorf wrote:
seedload wrote: You should restate that as you cannot relate central Greenland or Vostok to a global proxy UNLESS you are trying to show the correlation between CO2 and global temperature. Only then is it okay.
And furthermore, most global temperature recreations all emphasis that the warming is MOST pronounced at the poles. Presumably that means the unprecedented spike should show up most strongly in Greenland and Vostok.
They also say that most variation happens at the poles.
And if most of the variation is at the poles, that's where you are gonna see the hockey stick, cause the static less changing equator isn't cutting it.

Mikemcc01
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 10:23 am

Post by Mikemcc01 »

Mind you, I forgot to mention that GISP2 only goes up to 1855 (0.95k year prior to the 1950 radio carbon data reference), any further addition of data is mathturbation without providing a source to corrobarate it!

Mikemcc01
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 10:23 am

Post by Mikemcc01 »

bcglorf wrote:
Mikemcc01 wrote:
bcglorf wrote: And furthermore, most global temperature recreations all emphasis that the warming is MOST pronounced at the poles. Presumably that means the unprecedented spike should show up most strongly in Greenland and Vostok.
They also say that most variation happens at the poles.
And if most of the variation is at the poles, that's where you are gonna see the hockey stick, cause the static less changing equator isn't cutting it.
No, your not, you are going to see a profile of Greenland temperatures, whereas the 'hockey stick' is a representation of global temperatures. One (or even two) locations does not constitue a global model. By choosing points of maximal variation you just prove that those points have maximal variation - Whoopie do.

Mikemcc01
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 10:23 am

Post by Mikemcc01 »

I'm really surprised that a site that prides itself on technical and scientific excellence is laying itself open to the dribble from the climate denial bots.

zapkitty
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:13 pm

Post by zapkitty »

Mikemcc01 wrote:I'm really surprised that a site that prides itself on technical and scientific excellence is laying itself open to the dribble from the climate denial bots.
The sad thing is that these posters, indeed your average climate skeptical poster, are probably sincere.

They've just been fed a load of carefully coordinated bullshit that fits in with their political leanings.

And the ones who've facilitated that feeding may well have started the same way as these posters but somehow wound up being paid very well indeed for their services to the oligarchs:

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOil ... 628?sp=tru

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Post by bcglorf »

zapkitty wrote:
Mikemcc01 wrote:I'm really surprised that a site that prides itself on technical and scientific excellence is laying itself open to the dribble from the climate denial bots.
The sad thing is that these posters, indeed your average climate skeptical poster, are probably sincere.

They've just been fed a load of carefully coordinated bullshit that fits in with their political leanings.

And the ones who've facilitated that feeding may well have started the same way as these posters but somehow wound up being paid very well indeed for their services to the oligarchs:

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOil ... 628?sp=tru
Image

Sorry to interrupt your condescension with actual data.

You'll find above the raw proxy data from Mann's paper used to construct his updated and corrected version of his hockey stick graph. If you want to dismiss representative samples from Greenland and Vostok, maybe you'll accept that from one of your own?

Take a good look at the raw proxy data, and pay particular attention to the part from 1800 onwards. The only unprecedented pattern anywhere in there is for the Tiljander series(included as 4 separate lines), which is specifically noted to have been affected and unusable after 1850 because of local human activity ruining the source.

Any data analysis that can take the above raw data and produce a hockey stick showing a blatantly unprecedented pattern starting at the same point as the calibration data would do the same with random line noise.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

Debating the science is irrelevant. Debating the science is in fact a distraction.

The Prophets of Warmingism demand global sacrifice while living lives of conspicuous consumption. You can be a Prophet of Sacrifice, but to do so you must live the life of a Saint Francis of Assisi, not the life of a Borgia Pope.

The policy prescriptions are insane. The entire global economy is to be rebuilt and handed over to the Prophets of Warmingism to be actively and eternally supervised and operated under their Kyoto^nth^cubed plans. Uh... yeah. Riiiiight (backs away slowly, making no sudden movements).

Debating the science serves to distract from the hypocrisy of the Prophets and the insanity of their Program.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/ ... -part-one/
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/ ... part-deux/
Vae Victis

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

zapkitty wrote:
Mikemcc01 wrote:I'm really surprised that a site that prides itself on technical and scientific excellence is laying itself open to the dribble from the climate denial bots.
The sad thing is that these posters, indeed your average climate skeptical poster, are probably sincere.

They've just been fed a load of carefully coordinated bullshit that fits in with their political leanings.

And the ones who've facilitated that feeding may well have started the same way as these posters but somehow wound up being paid very well indeed for their services to the oligarchs:

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOil ... 628?sp=tru
Kitty,

If your entire argument is that anyone who posts a skeptical position is a easily duped simple minded pawn, then there is really nothing to discuss with you. You have obviously already classified all skeptical comments as not even being worthy of consideration and you have already classified anyone making them ('posters' here) as not capable of independent thought. If you really feel this way, then what can you possibly hope to accomplish by participating?

regards

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

Mikemcc01 wrote:
bcglorf wrote:
Mikemcc01 wrote:They also say that most variation happens at the poles.
And if most of the variation is at the poles, that's where you are gonna see the hockey stick, cause the static less changing equator isn't cutting it.
No, your not, you are going to see a profile of Greenland temperatures, whereas the 'hockey stick' is a representation of global temperatures. One (or even two) locations does not constitue a global model. By choosing points of maximal variation you just prove that those points have maximal variation - Whoopie do.
You actually make a good point. My contribution to this thread started in reply to comments about the ice caps/greenland melting. GISP2 data was obviously applicable in this area. I don't think I did a good job of migrating my arguments. I agree that Greenland has a high degree of fluctuation in temperature relative to other areas - even way higher than Antarctica. I was wrong to use this example in this context.

So, if you want to discuss global temperature and you want to show that current warming is unusual, what proxy data should be used, in your opinion? Is there a multi-proxy that you recommend as a basis for discussion?
Mikemcc01 wrote:I'm really surprised that a site that prides itself on technical and scientific excellence is laying itself open to the dribble from the climate denial bots.
Then, unfortunately, you start the name calling. :(

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Post by TDPerk »

"Then, unfortunately, you start the name calling."

That's all they have, really.

They dismiss Watt as a fraud--but cannot name one exaggeration let alone outright lie he has told. Hansen's unsupported adjustment of the data created much of the above baseline* warming he claims supports CO2 generated AGW, and Mann committed the hockey stick fraud.

*Yeah, yeah, depends on the baseline period. As the graphs recently presented show, nothing unusual is happening.

When they have a model which can without rigging recreate the recently known past from the older known past, they'll have something that's worth talking about.

They have nothing but their frauds, laughing at them is good for now.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Post by bcglorf »

Mikemcc01 wrote:I'm really surprised that a site that prides itself on technical and scientific excellence is laying itself open to the dribble from the climate denial bots.
Maybe look at what Mann has to say since his first paper.

The link above is to his reanalysis of his original paper fixing some of the statistical methods used in his first paper. He doesn't note it specifically, but if you look over his results you'll notice that the last 100 years of warming are no longer unprecedented or anomalous. In fact the warming since around 1850 has been observed previously on multiple occasions over the last 2k years by Mann's own reanalysis. Instead of noting this, he merely reiterates a much more conservative conclusion, that merely the last decade of warming was 'anomalous'.

Incidentally, that lone anomaly corresponds to the lone set of years for which proxy data is entirely absent and solely the instrumental record is available...

Is Mann one of the denial bots these days???

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

The Mann paper you just linked makes reference to anomolous temperatures over the last 1500-1700 years. Is this anomolous as in the temperature is rising unexpectedly or dropping unexpectedly? Is there a measurable contribution by humans to temperature change? What does this change mean in the long term? 50 years? 100 years? 500 years? Are the temperatures today going to be roughly the same in 2257? Will the climate across our currently livable surface area change such that it may not be as hospitable? If so, is there anything we can do to maintain its current climate?

These are the pertinent questions, the rest is fluff.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

bcglorf wrote:Maybe look at what Mann has to say since his first paper.

The link above is to his reanalysis of his original paper fixing some of the statistical methods used in his first paper. He doesn't note it specifically, but if you look over his results you'll notice that the last 100 years of warming are no longer unprecedented or anomalous. In fact the warming since around 1850 has been observed previously on multiple occasions over the last 2k years by Mann's own reanalysis. Instead of noting this, he merely reiterates a much more conservative conclusion, that merely the last decade of warming was 'anomalous'.

Incidentally, that lone anomaly corresponds to the lone set of years for which proxy data is entirely absent and solely the instrumental record is available...

Is Mann one of the denial bots these days???
Contra. Sounds like he's trying to rehab his reputation, one step at a time. The Virginia AG investigation and numerous FOIA requests may have finally scared him back to reality.
Vae Victis

ANTIcarrot
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:47 pm
Contact:

Post by ANTIcarrot »

bcglorf wrote:Is Mann one of the denial bots these days???
While not wishing to extend this thread any more than it already has been, perhaps some perspective should be restored. Why should we care what this Mann or any other individual thinks?

I know three things in this area:
1) I am not an expert in climate change.
2) The skeptics have failed to convince anyone who is an expert in climate change.
3) Globally peer reviewed research is generally correct in its findings. In this case climate change is real, we're causing it, it's probably going to be bad, engineering can probably mitigate and/or fix it, but the cost to do so will get exponentially more expensive unless we start soon.

I'm not going to argue details with you, because as I've said I lack the education to properly evaluate anything you put before me, and because such minor points are irrelevent in comparison to your main 'leap of faith' behind the skeptic arguement...

You are not simply arguing against climate change, you're arguing that we should set aside the proven track records of the scientific method, rational skeptisism, and the peer review process. Why should we do that?
Some light reading material: Half Way To Anywhere, The Rocket Company, Space Technology, The High Fronter, Of Wolves And Men, Light On Shattered Water, The Ultimate Weapon, any Janes Guide, GURPS Bio-Tech, ALIENS Technical Manual, The God Delusion.

Post Reply