Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:40 am Post subject: Re: Is the world actually Cooling not warming?
[quote="rockdoc123"]
Quote:
the point being missed here is that the GCM's suppossedly take into account natural variability. The latest policy statement from the IPCC suggest the natural forcings are fairly well constrained (which isn't necessarily the conclusion in the body of the report).
The GCMs still do not properly handle the ENSO cycle, which on shorter terms is a major global temperature regulator. There is no "global cooling" causing the 2008 temperature drop. It is a badass La Nina, practically on the order of the '98 El Nino.
I would venture to say that GCMs are completely useless on timeframes of less than 10-15 years. They are working towards improvement, but aren't there yet.
Joined: Oct 23, 2005 Posts: 1851 Location: East of Eden
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Is the world actually Cooling not warming?
Cashmere wrote:
Al Gore definitely is clueless about causation/correlation, but when you don't even have correlation, even a guy as unscientific as Al Gore should get it.
I'd have thought you'd be more interested in talking about what idiots folks like the World Meteorological Association, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, and NASA are.
We already know Gore's an idiot.
Did anyone here even see his blasted movie? Raise your hands - I sure didn't. What does he have to do with anything? With the added polarity he's generated around the topic I'm starting to wonder if his little PowerPoint presentation actually did more harm than good. _________________ "If a path to the better there be, it begins with a full look at the worst." — Thomas Hardy
Joined: Oct 23, 2005 Posts: 1851 Location: East of Eden
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:10 am Post subject: Re: Is the world actually Cooling not warming?
In any case, it hardly matters any longer. The discussion is over. We're past the point where we could have made any meaningful voluntary change in response to this threat. Peak oil is upon us, and it will be the great decider. One way or the other. _________________ "If a path to the better there be, it begins with a full look at the worst." — Thomas Hardy
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 12:36 pm Post subject: Re: Is the world actually Cooling not warming?
wxman said:
Quote:
There is no "global cooling" causing the 2008 temperature drop. It is a badass La Nina, practically on the order of the '98 El Nino.
As shown above, NOAA predicts that the La Nina will not have much affect over the next 3 months. So we should know soon. The 2000 La Nina had very little effect on world temperatures, if any. 2000 was one of the hottest on record.
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 12:52 pm Post subject: Re: Is the world actually Cooling not warming?
Quote:
However, as a layperson, I have yet to hear a GW "skeptic" that is convincing to me personally, and your post is typical of the genre. From the ad hominem attacks on Al Gore, to the insinuations of some shadowy conpiracy to soak up lucrative taxpayer grant money.
It's typical?
Ah well, I've been accused of worse. Much worse.
I attack Al Gore personally because he has held himself as personally an expert.
It's no different than if Al Gore was testifying at a trial. In less than an hour I'd have him admitting that he is not qualified to comment.
So the ad hominem on Gore is appropriate, because Gore has held himself out as an expert, not a narrator.
And let's get to the meat, shall we?
Most GW proponents run around and cite "experts".
Stop citing experts.
Cite the evidence.
For the last 10 years, all the GW hysterics have had, as the central talking point and, allegedly, the most convincing part of their argument, the ramp up of CO2 in the atmosphere caused by burning stored carbon.
Gore himself said so.
And the argument that has been made, here and elsewhere, VERY LOUDLY,is that Global Warming is caused by CO2 increases in the atmosphere, because CO2 is a GHG, and GHG cause global warming.
When the "deniers" mentioned that CO2 is a minor gas, the "believers" screamed even louder and cited to lots of experts.
In essence, the CO2 curve was presented as the irrefutable proof.
I've read, right here on this site, people writing things like, "Just look at the CO2 graph, duh!"
But now the evidence appears to show that CO2 and global temperatures are not correlated whatsoever over the relatively short period in question.
Of course, we don't have direct CO2 and temperature data from the past, so all we have is the data from the last couple of decades.
The data do not support the theory.
In science, if one is not pressured by being called a "denier", when evidence does not support a theory, the theory is questioned.
The main reason we're not seeing that now is because GW is such a loaded issue.
Criticizing GW theory is the scientific equivalent in this country of criticizing Israel.
GW is a religion.
Almost all of its adherents are adherents based on faith alone, with little or no understanding of the supporting evidence.
The Priests are the "climatologists."
Infidels are "deniers".
Me? I'm not a member of the Church of Global Warming of Latter Day Taints.
And have no doubt - the GW believers now know they made a huge mistake calling it GW, because a failure to warm is a strong disproof.
They have slowly but surely shifted the religion to "Climate Change."
Perfect. Climate is always changing, so the religion is always valid.
As for regs and profits.
Anybody who thinks corporations don't want regulations because it will hurt profits doesn't understand how regulations affect competition. _________________ Massive Human Dieoff must occur as a result of Peak Oil. Many more than half will die. It will occur everywhere, including where you live. If you fail to recognize this, then your odds of living move toward the "going to die" group.
Joined: Feb 20, 2005 Posts: 2888 Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 1:03 pm Post subject: Re: Is the world actually Cooling not warming?
Cashmere wrote:
The problem is there is ZERO correlation. That's the problem.
There is definetly correlation! But not casualation (or whatever you call it in English).
We know temperatures and CO2 levels are correlated. But we don't know if CO2 changes temperature, or if temperature changes CO2 levels.
But the current dogma has weaknesses. For example, historically CO2 levels started rising on average 800 years after temperature levels began rising.
This could either mean
a) temperatures increase CO2 levels, not the way around
or
b) while CO2 increases have not historically initiated temperature increases, they might well have strengthened or sustained temperature increases that were initiated by other things.
Not that it matters much though. There aren't enough cheap fossil fuels on the planet to cause dangerous climate change even if the theories are correct. And even if there were enough cheap fossil fuels (mainly coal) we could solve the problem just by legislating that no new coal power plants were allowed to be built, and all new power, heating and industry energy demand could instead be filled by wind and nuclear.
By the way, I wouldn't trust the IPCC for a second. It is a political, not scientific organization. They have ignored science before (visavi the resource base*) so they might ignore it when it comes to other things too (like the climate feedback mechanisms).
* Even their lowest emissions scenario requires us to burn more fossil fuels than even the BP or the IEA thinks exists... _________________ Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Last edited by Starvid on Wed Aug 06, 2008 1:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 1:05 pm Post subject: Re: Is the world actually Cooling not warming?
Quote:
I would venture to say that GCMs are completely useless on timeframes of less than 10-15 years. They are working towards improvement, but aren't there yet.
Indeed....and based on the paper I quoted from they are useless on the 30 year basis as well.
Your point on ENSO merely adds fuel to the fire. ENSO isn't handled well in the GCMs, yet we still continue to hear the matra "the science is settled".
A good scientist would admit....well we just don't know, here are the possibilities but there is a lot more work to be done and here are the areas were the research needs to be focussed. This is the message coming from several scientists that many who posted here would claim are "denialists".
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 1:24 pm Post subject: Re: Is the world actually Cooling not warming?
Starvid wrote:
Cashmere wrote:
The problem is there is ZERO correlation. That's the problem.
There is definetly correlation! But not casualation (or whatever you call it in English).
1st of all - utmost respect for all who have mastered 2 languages. I have not (to my shame).
Starvid - your English is impeccable, but you have inadvertently coined a new word.
causation is what you wanted.
Casualation I now define as what happens at a work place on Fridays!
Good one! _________________ Massive Human Dieoff must occur as a result of Peak Oil. Many more than half will die. It will occur everywhere, including where you live. If you fail to recognize this, then your odds of living move toward the "going to die" group.
Joined: May 22, 2004 Posts: 1438 Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 4:17 pm Post subject: Re: Is the world actually Cooling not warming?
Quote:
As my late, great friend Reid Bryson would say: Science isn't done by consensus.
However IPCC reports are all about politics. I am all for skeptical scientists going forth with their theories and trying to disprove AGW. The skeptics who actually do that are relatively few, most skeptics in the media are dealing with AGW as a political issue. Some of these skeptics for whom I am tempted to use the perjorative "denialist", are not above massaging the data to make their case.
Climate science is still developing but it is in the political domain that the real fight is going on. For the most part the front lines of scientific controversy have passed beyond whether or not CO2 influences climate. _________________ Biofuels: The "What else we got to burn?" answer to peak oil.
Joined: May 20, 2005 Posts: 56 Location: United Kingdom
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 4:21 pm Post subject: Re: Is the world actually Cooling not warming?
retiredguy wrote:
As my late, great friend Reid Bryson would say: Science isn't done by consensus.
Hear Hear!
Thanks for the great discussion. Ignore the natural changes at your peril. We really aren't as influential with the global climate as some would have us think and threads like this go to prove it. I am glad to see some scientists still have the balls to point this out.
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 5:21 pm Post subject: Re: Is the world actually Cooling not warming?
Cashmere wrote:
When the "deniers" mentioned that CO2 is a minor gas, the "believers" screamed even louder and cited to lots of experts.
....
In science, if one is not pressured by being called a "denier", when evidence does not support a theory, the theory is questioned.
nope.
Because we cannot control interference from outside variables in the external environment, the laboratory technique of disproving based on anomalies isn't as powerful, it is muddied by a considerable question of where that heat may have been stored or sequestered, or what other factors may be acting on the data. heat exchange is always taking place between the atmosphere, the ocean, the land, and space. but if higher concentrations of CO2 have been shown to insulate the atmosphere and trap heat, and we know that human activities produce CO2, then we do have a good foundation for investigation.
Regarding CO2 as a "minor gas." Minor is what way? Are you saying that something has to be present at a specified percentage of the atmosphere to have any affect? What is that percentage and how did you arrive at that figure?
Should I also assume that a few tiny micrograms of LSD will have no effect on my brain chemistry?
Joined: Aug 26, 2005 Posts: 1009 Location: "Mad as Hell !"
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 5:48 pm Post subject: Re: Is the world actually Cooling not warming?
aflurry wrote:
Well, both climate science and economics are disadvantaged by the fact that there is no controlled laboratory environment in which to establish a groundwork, so they are constantly being challenged on the fundamentals of their discipline - which is healthy if done in good faith. But good faith is pretty rare in the political climate these days.
And it is possible we may find out that both disciplines were just hallucinations from the ground up.
However, as a layperson, I have yet to hear a GW "skeptic" that is convincing to me personally, and your post is typical of the genre. From the ad hominem attacks on Al Gore, to the insinuations of some shadowy conpiracy to soak up lucrative taxpayer grant money.
How exactly does one "quietly change" terminology, anyway? Isn't that one of those, what is it, oxymorons?
The problem is that these "skeptics" are by and large smear technicians in the service of businesses that are afraid they may be faced with profit-killing regulation, so they inject a bit of chaos into the debate and start flailing it around to inflict whatever damage they can. It is a political stance, not a scientific one. And the overwhelming portion of corrupting influence is available to the skeptical side, though you'd neven know that to hear their accusations.
Rove's political tactics are the blueprint for the AGW skeptics. Attack the other side with your weakness. If you are receiving payouts for corrupt science, accuse your opponents of the same thing. Simple, cynical, effective.
Then of course there are the true believers, the retarded offspring of the marriage between the fundy religious Xtians and the capitalist robber-barons. Those who think Jesus was an American and the "free market" is the manifestation of heavenly grace on earth. For them, AGW skepticism in the service of God and Capital is as evident as Intelligent Design.
Bravo... well put! _________________ The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:58 pm Post subject: Re: Is the world actually Cooling not warming?
shortonoil wrote:
wxman said:
As shown above, NOAA predicts that the La Nina will not have much affect over the next 3 months. So we should know soon. The 2000 La Nina had very little effect on world temperatures, if any. 2000 was one of the hottest on record.
1999 and 2000 were certainly colder because of the La Nina.
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:59 pm Post subject: Re: Is the world actually Cooling not warming?
snowhope wrote:
retiredguy wrote:
As my late, great friend Reid Bryson would say: Science isn't done by consensus.
Hear Hear!
Thanks for the great discussion. Ignore the natural changes at your peril. We really aren't as influential with the global climate as some would have us think and threads like this go to prove it. I am glad to see some scientists still have the balls to point this out.
Or the ego. There are certainly scientists out there that want to be "the one that disproved AGW".
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Ignore the natural changes at your peril. We really aren't as influential with the global climate as some would have us think and threads like this go to prove it. I am glad to see some scientists still have the balls to point this out.
