the article posted at the beginning of this the prior page is the result of some of my research...it obviously wasn't my project, but they used my data

[Edited on May 11, 2011 at 8:43 AM. Reason : oops, new page]

5/11/2011 8:42:36 AM

ozone is only .0001% Doesn't mean it doesn't play a significant role.

5/11/2011 11:18:47 AM

^^that's pretty cool man!

^you're just 10/10 for stupid comments aren't ya? We didn't realize C02 exists only in a small sliver of the atmosphere and blocks UV rays...

[Edited on May 11, 2011 at 11:33 AM. Reason : k]

5/11/2011 11:31:55 AM

Quote :

""

your point? That kind of proves my point that our climate is quite stable. Nowhere do we see anything in that graph that looks like a runaway system that goes apeshit when the smallest little factor changes

5/11/2011 3:27:25 PM

Milutin Milankovic takes umbrage with your concept of "stable". Just because something appears cyclical to your climatologically untrained eye does not mean that it is all stable.

5/11/2011 3:56:45 PM

usually i poop every other day and the consistancy is comparable to a rice krispie treat-like mixture although i would say with peanut butter and cap'n crunch instead.

regardless, my diet hasnt really changed in years but there is always the occasional day where it turns into marshmellow fluff and burns like 1000 wasabis.

i would liken this to global warming and assume any small/unseen civilization living off my poop/relying on this cycle is probably unthreatened by such random mishaps.

5/11/2011 6:16:23 PM

so, kind sir, in your climatalogically trained eye, what about that picture makes it NOT look like a stable climate system? staying within 10-12C consistently isn't stable? REALLY? And then deviations that are clearly cyclical mean nothing? really? yep, we REALLY have a crazy ass climate. I see routine changes of 100s of degrees there.

5/11/2011 7:02:01 PM

Cyclical to you, perhaps. It's good to see though that your definition of "stable" is anything between an intense warming period and an ice age. You'd be better off selling your notions on any of the other three rocky planets, but not Earth thankfully. Perhaps it's just arguing semantics but when you make absurd claims about Earth's weather being "stable" it would have helped had you entered the discussion adequately prepared.

5/11/2011 7:29:42 PM

so, you have no argument that it's not stable. got it

but, please, what about that suggests that it's not cyclical? hmmm? enlighten us all with your weather maps

[Edited on May 11, 2011 at 7:46 PM. Reason : ]

5/11/2011 7:45:51 PM

He has a point..instead of pithy one liner snarks that you (well, not just you, many of us) are known for, why not get your terms right. Something can be stably unstable, cyclically stable between unstable regimes, and so on.

Btw, I don't really follow this debate very much...how do we know with certainty what the temp of the Earth was 400,000 years ago? Ice cores (or whatever device we have) have been definitively and thoroughly proven and that is something we don't even have to think about, or is that actually the crux of the debate? How do we know what we don't know, etc?

5/11/2011 7:52:10 PM

^^ Or rather you fail at both reading comprehension and understanding the difference between heating periods and ice ages. I've already refuted twice your assertion of stability. If you're too obtuse to grasp that then not even my "weather maps" will be of any help to you. Your scale of "hundreds of degrees" is rather absurd and well outside the scope of rational discussion hence isn't going to be entertained. Reality, however, of even a 10s of degrees shift represents drastically different circumstances for Earth's weather patterns. You keep trying to equate a (self-asserted) notion of cyclical behavior with stability while I contend that dynamic polarization represents stark instability. Weather, by definition, is a result of instability.

^ As per your question, yes, ice cores are a way to gauge perhistoric temperatures. And no, I am not debating climate change. I simply took exception to his highly flawed assertion that the Earth's climate vis-a-vis weather is or ever has been stable.

[Edited on May 11, 2011 at 8:04 PM. Reason : .]

5/11/2011 8:01:15 PM

Quote :

"I've already refuted twice your assertion of stability."

except, you really haven't. you've provided a graph of temperatures, which proved my point.

Quote :

"Your scale of "hundreds of degrees" "

followed up with "routine changes" makes it far more important. As in, our climate rarely changes drastically, and when it does, it does so in a long-term fashion, and cyclically, suggesting that the change is due to something that is long-lived (ie, earth's axis wobble), not some inherently unstable process such as asininely unstable positive feedbacks. But we aren't seeing these changes happening in decades or centuries. We seem them over tens of millenia. Ergo, stability.

5/11/2011 8:08:58 PM

If you want to say that the Earth going from tropical to a snowball is stable then fine, look like a moron. If you want to see a line go up and down and call it stable then great, look like an uneducated moron.

Fact being, your definition of stability as it relates to climate and weather is completely wrong. I am not even getting into a discussion about positive feedbacks or their potential effects with you.

Since you want to talk about time scales. Enjoy the "stability" here:

5/11/2011 8:29:20 PM

well, from that graph it sure looks bounded-output stable. Given that, you are on the way to demonstrating a form of systemic stability.

5/11/2011 9:42:04 PM

Stable as in you see pretty zig-zag lines, sure. Stable in a meteorological sense? Not so much. The burros of the Miocene and Pliocene eras would have seen "stability" in their temperature profiles as well and we see how that stayed the same...

5/11/2011 9:48:52 PM

I was not aware that stable means "zero change ever." Good work!

5/11/2011 11:50:49 PM

Well, you've made it rather plain that you were/are not aware of a right number of things. Good work!

5/12/2011 1:19:26 AM

Two things for both aaronburro and HockeyRoman

1.
The ice core record indicates that the Earth at minimum used to follow a predictable patter, regardless of whatever system dynamics caused this behavior. This is a literal observation from the graph. But doesn't it matter that we're at the TOP of the graph to start out with and we are ADDING heat - as in going outside the past range of temperatures. If we were just regressing back into the historically common ice age that would be one thing, but... that's not the case.

2.
For crying out loud - we're only like 290 degress C above absolute zero. I think that 10s of degrees sounds like a significant fraction of that. I agree that 100s of degrees might be physically plausible for some planet, obviously there's Venus, but are there not some definable temperature bounds that exist just do to the fact that the Earth only has so many potential greenhouse gases to work with? I mean, just for the record, once Methane or CO2 has blacked out their absorption wavelengths, then adding more doesn't do anything. So what I'm getting to: does movements of 10s of degrees constitute banging in-between extremes and evidence (to you) some sort of stability due to the fact that it didn't wig out much worse?

5/12/2011 7:50:32 AM

Quote :

"But doesn't it matter that we're at the TOP of the graph to start out with and we are ADDING heat - as in going outside the past range of temperatures."

well, if we could show we were actually adding heat, maybe. but even THAT is up in the air at this point

5/13/2011 6:57:58 PM

^ ha ha. Up in the AIR. I got that.

5/14/2011 2:36:33 AM

Said et al (2008) officially retracted by Computational Statistics and Data Analysis due to plagiarism and other questionable peer-review processes. It was on a similar topic as the congressional "Wegman Report" and was co-authored by Edward Wegman.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2011-05-15-climate-study-plagiarism-Wegman_n.htm

5/16/2011 5:14:14 PM

yep, pretty embarrassing. Plagiarizing wikipedia, lol. If, as the article says, the study really said "scientists shouldn't collaborate," then that is equally stupid, and would seem to be against what the Wegman report was actually showing. The Wegman report showed that there was an unusual amount of close collaboration among the top scientists in the AGW field and that it wasn't generally found in other fields of scientific research. However, I certainly wouldn't take that to mean that scientists should never collaborate. Rather, I take it is a warning against group-think in scientific circles.

5/16/2011 5:55:04 PM

maybe if there werent so many fags and pro-choice abortionists to burn in hell the world wouldnt be warming up amirite?

5/18/2011 12:48:02 PM

^^^while Wegman is definitely at fault, it seems like the main source of the problem here was the Asian graduate student who assisted him and seemed to have little concept of what plagarism is. Which is ridiculous, but they have a weird culture so go figure.

5/19/2011 1:45:33 PM

Quote :

"well, if we could show we were actually adding heat, maybe. but even THAT is up in the air at this point"

[quote]Go back to high school science.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge0jhYDcazY

5/20/2011 9:37:27 PM

that doesn't show that there is additional heat of any appreciable magnitude being added to the atmosphere. go back to reading 101

5/20/2011 10:03:28 PM

dumping out 27 billion tonnes per year of something that is trapping heat (weather you find it to be an appreciable magnitude or not) is definitely proof that we are actually adding heat.

5/20/2011 10:11:33 PM

if you add heat, but it isn't enough to even matter, have you really added heat or changed anything? no. that's the point. but please, forgive me for not putting "enough heat to actually matter" in the quoted sentence

[Edited on May 20, 2011 at 10:12 PM. Reason : ]

5/20/2011 10:12:35 PM

but regardless of what your definition of "enough to matter" is, we are adding heat. correct?

5/20/2011 10:13:53 PM

Quote :

"but please, forgive me for not putting "enough heat to actually matter" in the quoted sentence"

5/21/2011 6:12:49 PM

That all depends on what your idea of "enough to matter" is. You agree we are adding heat and you also agree that things are changing. You just don't think we are adding enough heat to be responsible for the things that are changing. You aren't certain of this but its what you believe. But what if your idea of the requirement to matter is wrong?

5/21/2011 9:43:21 PM

^if it were that simple, then the proof would be posted. But sorry, it's not. Go back to what I said before, which was to show the direct link. You didn't b/c you can't. Nevermind the fact that CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and that it makes up a tiny fraction of our atmosphere.

5/22/2011 11:23:00 PM

proof of what? That carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas? or proof that we are dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere? or proof of global climate change?

[Edited on May 22, 2011 at 11:27 PM. Reason : they are all well-known facts ]

5/22/2011 11:27:20 PM

How about proof that the global climate has not been changing for far longer than we have been here.

5/23/2011 12:40:44 AM

no one (and by no on i mean NOBODY) has made that assertion. In fact, we have proof that the climate has been changing for hundreds of thousands of years.

[Edited on May 23, 2011 at 8:47 AM. Reason : k]

5/23/2011 8:46:28 AM

^exactly. So how are you going to tell me humans are to blame for climate change and I should stop driving a car and change my lifestyle to reduce my carbon footprint? Being a reasonable person I'd ask for proof to back up a reason to change my lifestyle. And that is something the Warmists can't deliver.

5/23/2011 9:40:53 AM

Quote :

"if you add heat, but it isn't enough to even matter, have you really added heat or changed anything? no. that's the point. but please, forgive me for not putting "enough heat to actually matter" in the quoted sentence"

I hope that people here are educated enough to not get hung up on this. Of course the argument is that the forcing from CO2 from our activities is enough to matter, and in fact, enough to threaten the livability of a large fraction of life on Earth.

Yes, we need to quantify the statements that we make, or at least do so when asked for such. My above statement is one quantification, another more quantitative option from the IPCC is that the 750 ppm CO2 assumption in 2100 (which is reasonable beyond a doubt) causes around 1 degree C warming from a direct radiative forcing calculation, and the 100s of scientists and billions in funding into climate science points to a multiplying effect that could lead to 7 degrees C warming, which would be catastrophic.



Note horizontal and vertical axis. The claim is:
+7 degrees in 100 years.

Now will you please state your own claims with coherence.

5/23/2011 10:50:26 AM

Quote :

"You agree we are adding heat and you also agree that things are changing. "

Actually, I don't even think things are "changing," except in the sense that they are following historical cycles

Quote :

"Of course the argument is that the forcing from CO2 from our activities is enough to matter, and in fact, enough to threaten the livability of a large fraction of life on Earth."

Obviously that's the argument, but the evidence simply doesn't exist for it. The only way they can make it exist is to rig the numbers and keep adjusting early 1900s temperatures down and late 1900s temperatures up, as has been proven to have been done. Then they rely on poorly sited weather stations that are often beside AC exhausts and on top of tarred roofs, and they wonder why the measured temperatures keep going up.

Quote :

"another more quantitative option from the IPCC is that the 750 ppm CO2 assumption in 2100 (which is reasonable beyond a doubt) causes around 1 degree C warming from a direct radiative forcing calculation"

yes, a calculation that was done by assuming the forcing was linear, which is in dispute, and then breaking up the calculation among several groups who were told to do worst case estimates, who had no communication amongst themselves, and who used assumptions that were in conflict with each others. Thus, to say it was "reasonable beyond a doubt" is to be a liar.

Quote :

"and the 100s of scientists and billions in funding into climate science points to a multiplying effect that could lead to 7 degrees C warming, which would be catastrophic."

all of whom certainly wouldn't do anything to jeopardize their own funding, and whose studies are based on an insane notion that a fairly stable climate system is dominated by naturally unstable feedbacks due to a trace gas in the atmosphere.

5/23/2011 7:04:19 PM

Quote :

"New IPCC error: renewables report conclusion was dictated by Greenpeace The headlines were unequivocal when the IPCC renewables report came out a few weeks ago. Here’s the first line of the BBC News piece: Renewable technologies could supply 80% of the world’s energy needs by mid-century, says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Guardian led with the same conclusion: Renewable energy could account for almost 80% of the world’s energy supply within four decades – but only if governments pursue the policies needed to promote green power, according to a landmark report published on Monday. And so on. But what you weren’t told was that the actual report had not yet been released – the headlines were based on a ‘Summary for Policymakers (PDF)’ which referenced statistics and scenarios which journalists would not be able to check until the entire full report was released a month or so later. That release of the full report happened yesterday. And a close reading of it shows that the IPCC has made an error much more serious than the so-called Himalayagate and associated non-scandals last year – it has allowed its headline conclusion to be dictated by a campaigning NGO. Moreover, the error was spotted initially by none other than Steve McIntyre, who has been a thorn in the side of the IPCC and climate science generally for a long time. Yet this time McIntyre has got it right. Here’s what happened. The 80% by 2050 figure was based on a scenario, so Chapter 10 of the full report reveals, called ER-2010, which does indeed project renewables supplying 77% of the globe’s primary energy by 2050. The lead author of the ER-2010 scenario, however, is a Sven Teske, who should have been identified (but is not) as a climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace International. Even worse, Teske is a lead author of the IPCC report also – in effect meaning that this campaigner for Greenpeace was not only embedded in the IPCC itself, but was in effect allowed to review and promote his own campaigning work under the cover of the authoritative and trustworthy IPCC. A more scandalous conflict of interest can scarcely be imagined. --- The IPCC must urgently review its policies for hiring lead authors – and I would have thought that not only should biased ‘grey literature’ be rejected, but campaigners from NGOs should not be allowed to join the lead author group and thereby review their own work. There is even a commercial conflict of interest here given that the renewables industry stands to be the main beneficiary of any change in government policies based on the IPCC report’s conclusions. Had it been an oil industry intervention which led the IPCC to a particular conclusion, Greenpeace et al would have course have been screaming blue murder. Additionally, the Greenpeace/renewables industry report is so flawed that it should not have been considered by the IPCC at all. Whilst the journal-published version looks like proper science, the propaganda version on the Greenpeace website has all the hallmarks of a piece of work which started with some conclusions and then set about justifying them. There is a whole section dedicated to ‘dirty, dangerous nuclear power’, and the scenario includes a complete phase-out of new nuclear globally, with no stations built after 2008."

Mark Lynas, btw, is quite far from a skeptic.

http://www.marklynas.org/2011/06/new-ipcc-error-renewables-report-conclusion-was-dictated-by-greenpeace/

6/16/2011 12:51:17 PM

eh, he's obviously been paid off by Exxon

6/16/2011 5:20:15 PM

bump, just because.

7/27/2011 10:01:24 AM

Did anyone see this yet:


http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

Quote :

"NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed."

Doesn't mean anyone was tampering, just proves their modeling technique was off. Nice to hear that NASA actually does something.

[Edited on July 28, 2011 at 12:38 PM. Reason : []

7/28/2011 12:38:21 PM

I was just going to come in here and post this.

I think its time that people realize that our trend in global warming is just another one of Earth's cyclical events like has occurred many times in history, not due to CO2 emissions.

however, green technology should continue to be funded so we can rid ourselves of our dependance on foreign oil.

7/28/2011 1:50:08 PM

Quote :

"however, green technology should continue to be funded so we can rid ourselves of our dependance on foreign oil."

Not to mention Fossil Fuel emission is still a pollution and health issue.

7/28/2011 2:46:11 PM

I've been trying to read the actual paper all afternoon but the website keeps fucking up - anyone else been able to access it?

7/28/2011 3:25:56 PM

It's open access, but it looks like their website is down.

7/28/2011 3:43:06 PM

Quote :

"Not to mention Fossil Fuel emission is still a pollution and health issue."

And the EPA has done a fine job of regulating those emissions (SOx, NOx and CO). It's time for them to leave CO2 alone and get back to enforcing only that which is what they were created for.

7/28/2011 4:45:52 PM

^5.


Exactly. Even if we're wrong, we're still right.

7/28/2011 6:03:19 PM

^no, b/c artificially reducing our standard of living isn't "being right".

7/28/2011 7:16:47 PM

Not to mention doing research in the wrong issue, that will benefit society is not as lucrative as doing research on the right issue that does benefit society. If you have bad models then when you make a system your data will not converge and it may not have the desired affect. Meaning if research is being conducted in the area of reducing or converting CO2 to H2O and organics, which it is, it will still benefit society, but when it is implemented it will not have the projected affect on the climate. Thus anyone who develops technology/passes legislation may consider the new technology and how it is projected to "change the climate" when in fact less climate change will occur when projected, and you are left with more money being spent to figure out climate variance.

7/28/2011 7:48:25 PM