Whistler: You are right and I truly respect your extensive knowledge on the subject of so-called human caused global warming; but for all practical purposes the debate is over because the Supreme Court, the Congress, the United Nations and most of the world have bought into the hype/lies. I honestly do not know what it would take now to turn back the tide, and to keep us from being destroyed economically cleaning up the world.
You have to admit that this has reached the level of global insanity!
Eneils Bailey
· 2 years ago
Whistler, Who the hell are you to try to bring proof and science into this mass hysteria? You are probably some right-wing, religious zealot, homophobic, wife-beating, child-abusing, home-schooling , meat-eating zealot that has no idea that the world will end next week unless we relinquish control of our lives to the prophet of impending doom, Algore....
Is it getting hot in here, or is that just me?
The Whistler
· 2 years ago
Eneils, guilty of two of things.
Andrew
· 2 years ago
[i]Eneils, guilty of two of things. [/i]
I hope wife-beating is one of them.
The Whistler
· 2 years ago
I wish, she'd kick my ass.
Eneils Bailey
· 2 years ago
My guess is he maintains civility in the household, and if that entails a bull-whipping of the mate on the driveway late at nite, that's ok.
Proof
· 2 years ago
[quote]I hope wife-beating is one of them. [/quote] Andrew: When did you stop beating [i]your[/i] wife?
Eneils Bailey
· 2 years ago
My apologizes for going off topic and discussing your bad habits. I just can't find myself taking Algore seriously. He is a joke, a throwback to activism of the sixties. His lilting, sing-songey voice, and effeteness, his desire to eventually grow up and become a man, just leaves me empty. Too bad some people take this man and his ideas seriously.
goon
· 2 years ago
I can't take Al Goron seriously esepcially when I don't think Goron even has a degree in the science field.
Eneils Bailey
· 2 years ago
Goon, Yeah, it's hard to believe that me cooking up a hunk of meat on my grill, cows farting, and driving my 350 horsepower engine to work is going to ruin the world.
My thoughts are the people that believe his bullshit will ruin the world.
Eneils Bailey
· 2 years ago
The left does not believe in science, they believe in feelings, emotions, and of course, their hatred of George Bush. Their perception of a political debate is to imagine what George Bush is for, and then find some personal attribute he possess that can justify their hatred of him and what he stands for; therefore a far-fetched idea, an inane conclusion, based on a drunken sense of superiority leads them to prophets such as Algore.
Will
· 2 years ago
[quote]The left does not believe in science, they believe in feelings, emotions, and of course, their hatred of George Bush.[/quote]
Whistler, Eneils Bailey, and their ilk choose the "science" of a weatherman over the work of the many hundreds of trained professional scientists who have devoted their lives to understanding the climate.
The worldwide consensus of the professional climate scientists is represented by the [url=http://www.ipcc.ch/]IPCC[/url].
2Hotel9
· 2 years ago
I spent 4 hours last night going over the latest crap from IPCC. They did exactly as they said they would in December. They picked what would support their foregone conclusion.
And who am I going to believe? Not anyone at the UN, nor anyone they pay to reach conclusions that are preordained by committee. They could be standing in front of me on fire, tell me they are on fire, and I will still never believe a single word that comes from their mouths.
Proof
· 2 years ago
[quote]Whistler, Eneils Bailey, and their ilk choose the "science" of a weatherman over the work of the many hundreds of trained professional scientists who have [i]devoted their lives[/i] to understanding the climate.[/quote] Just like Al Gore has "devoted his life", no doubt, to living a lifestyle commensurate with the size of the "crisis"! [quote]trained professional [/quote] Bad scientist! No biscuit! [quote]understanding the climate[/quote] So, climate....tell me about your childhood! [quote]Whistler... and their ilk[/quote] Would that be "Wilk"?
The Whistler
· 2 years ago
I've got a "wilk"? Wow I didn't think I'd ever be important.
Neiman
· 2 years ago
Will: I believe both your claims and premise are both false.
1. There are many, accredited, reputable scientists having spoken out against [u]Human Caused[/u] Global Warning.
2. Most scientists in our nation and world, for various and sundry reasons are liberals, mostly because to gain tenure, get published and to maintain credibility within liberal academic circles, one must follow the current, narrow-minded, dictatorial liberal dogma or see their careers die. Even the Smithsonian will not publish or submit for peer review any scientific studies that oppose the [i][b]theory[/b][/i] of human caused global warming.
3. The International Pollution Prevention Control Organization is a wholly Leftist, European Sociaist construct and to serve European socialist goals they are forcing laws to be enacted to deal with a not yet unproven theory.
Eneils Bailey
· 2 years ago
Will, Who am I to try to convince you that a weatherman may know more about science than some third-rate, punk politician who finds a public forum every day to proclaim the "sky is falling."
Must be all those tons of CO2 that people have pumped into the atmosphere. Some fell on my cabbage patch today. Yeah, hundreds of trained scientists may have voted to reach a concensus. Please provide me with a list of of all those "Climate Scientists" and then I may think of you as being more than a emotional socialists who believes "the sky is falling."
Eneils Bailey
· 2 years ago
Will, Still waiting. A vote not Science.
Ignorance is not proof.
Eneils Bailey
· 2 years ago
Will, Are you still there? Should we send out a search party with water and an umbrella? While you are recuperating, I have some eighth grade science books that may explain climatology over the the last one thousand years. I realize, to shitheads like you, and believing what you do, there was no history or scientific fact before you were born. Console yourself, there were actually things that happened, and consequences that we now endure that occur before your miserable existence on planet Earth.
Andrew
· 2 years ago
[i]Andrew: When did you stop beating your wife? [/i]
What leads you to believe I ever stopped.
Proof
· 2 years ago
[quote]Andrew: When did you stop beating your wife? What leads you to believe I ever stopped. [/quote] Thus, the effectiveness of the question!
Will
· 2 years ago
[quote]Please provide me with a list of of all those "Climate Scientists" and then I may think of you as being more than a emotional socialists who believes "the sky is falling." [/quote]
You're kidding, right? Look, it's common knowledge that the vast majority of climate scientists believe that greenhouse gases from human activity are warming the planet and will have negative long-term consequences. Sure, there are some who disagree, but it's a small proportion.
In case you're NOT kidding, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change]here's[/url] a reference for you:
[quote]The only major scientific organization that rejects the finding of human influence on recent climate is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG).[/quote]
Hmm. You don't suppose the AAPG would have an agenda, do you?
Nieman -
[quote]The International Pollution Prevention Control Organization is a wholly Leftist, European Sociaist construct and to serve European socialist goals they are forcing laws to be enacted to deal with a not yet unproven theory.[/quote]
Um, well, that's interesting, but the organization that deals with climate change is the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change. You would know that if you followed my link. You should make sure you're smearing the right organization before you post. It will make you look less foolish.
2Hotel9
· 2 years ago
will, you, and your humansareevil crowd, are so full of shit your breath stinks and your eyes are brown. CO2 is 0.03% of the atmosphere. Mars and Venus and the observable inner face of the Asteroid Belt are warming at the same rate as the Earth. And Luna. Observational data of Jupiter and its attendant orbital concubines are also showing appreciable warming. Exactly how are humans causing that, genius?
Carrick
· 2 years ago
Will:
You're kidding, right? Look, it's common knowledge that the vast majority of climate scientists believe that greenhouse gases from human activity are warming the planet and will have negative long-term consequences. Sure, there are some who disagree, but it's a small proportion.
This is somewhat of a strawman argument.
The article above was addressing people who exaggerate the risk of global climate change, and exaggerate the role of human generated CO2, not the obvious statement that the Earth is getting warmer, or the fact that human-generated greenhouse gases are playing a role in its warming.
In case you missed it:
[Gore] one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about,
That quote could have come from me as well.
Nice how you are now trying to distinguish climate from weather, as if the distinction even mattered. No doubt you are dittoing a comment by Michael Mann on this. The only distinction that is meaningful between the two is length and time scales. The atmospheric physics equations are virtually the same. Even one of Mann's own links basically describes climate as a long-term average of weather.
The fact that Mann had to use the "Oh my God! He used the wrong word!" ad hominem to avoid addressing Crichton's points just shows how weak your side's arguments really are. It was never about science, it has always been about politics, policy and an inane desire to control the debate.
The Whistler
· 2 years ago
[quote]Look, it's common knowledge that the vast majority of climate scientists believe that greenhouse gases from human activity are warming the planet and will have negative long-term consequences. Sure, there are some who disagree, but it's a small proportion.[/quote]
You don't really know anyone besides Algore right?
I'll give you a hint, the consensus is among socialists and non climate scientists.
Eneils Bailey
· 2 years ago
"common knowledge" is scientific proof?
Was is not "common knowledge" in the fourteenth century that sent Galileo to prison?
The Earth revolves around the Sun. Algore revolves around his own stupidity.
Eneils Bailey
· 2 years ago
Will, Yeah, The names of the purveyors of this sham would be nice. You mean an artificial degree for an artificial institution professing an artificial thesis would be nice. Names? Institutions? Areas of expertise? Please? You are Bullshitting, just like Algore. Since you have such intimate knowledge, may I call them collect?
Will
· 2 years ago
[quote]You are Bullshitting[/quote]
[quote]the consensus is among socialists and non climate scientists[/quote]
Not according to your own federal government's [url=http://dels.nas.edu/basc/Climate-HIGH.pdf]National Academy of Sciences[/url]:
[quote]In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth's warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (see Figure 1). Greenhouse gases have increased significantly since the Industrial Revolution, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels for energy, industrial processes, and transportation. Greenhouse gases are at their highest levels in at least 400,000 years and continue to rise.[/quote]
Or the The [url=http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf]American Association for the Advancement of Science[/url]:
[quote]The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.[/quote]
2Hotel9
· 2 years ago
So human activity is raising the baseline temps of all the bodies orbiting in the inner Solar System. We are truly mighty and powerful.
Proof
· 2 years ago
[quote]So human activity is raising the baseline temps of all the bodies orbiting in the inner Solar System[/quote] The excess heat from Al Gore's pool house [i]alone [/i]is heating Mars!
Will
· 2 years ago
Warming at the southern ice cap of Mars is believed to be caused by [url=http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/05/MNG78P2SPV1.DTL&type=science ]dust storms [/url]which increase absorbation of solar radiation:
[quote]The cause, according to Fenton, is a combination of high Martian winds that periodically scour bright sand and dust from many rocky surface regions, fierce Martian "dust devils," similar to those that whip desert sands on Earth, and truly major dust storms like the one in 2001 that began inside the crater called Hellas Basin and then literally wrapped itself around the planet before subsiding.[/quote]
Proof
· 2 years ago
[quote]Warming at the southern ice cap of Mars is believed to be caused by dust storms[/quote] Kicked up by all those little Martian SUVs...damn off-roaders!
robert108
· 2 years ago
Proof: It's all the Martian SUVs driving to all the Martian WalMarts... Of course, all they need to do to stop Martian Global Warming is to buy more "carbon offsets". Right!
daveinboca
· 2 years ago
The current hysteria is a symptom of displacement, a psychological mechanism that allows one to ignore real threats like Islamic terrorism, in order to focus on imaginary phantasms like Anthropogenic Global Warming. Part of the left's denial of reality, a symptom of a larger mass psychosis infecting much of the American electorate.
robert108
· 2 years ago
Sounds about right...
Move_Zig
· 2 years ago
DaveinBoca,
Spot-on, my friend.
To be Leftist is to have a skewed world view.
To be a Leftist, you must believe that Socialism is morally superior to Free Society (what Leftists derisively term [i]Capitalism[/i]) and at the same time, believe glaring historical facts like the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Book_of_Communism]millions slaughtered[/url] in places like the Soviet Union, National Socialist Germany, Red China, Cambodia, Vietnam, East Germany, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Nicaragua, Cuba, Angola, North Korea...etc... [i][url=http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/]don't really count[/url][/i].
This vastly simplifies the contrasts, but it shows that Leftists are:
1) In denial (a form of [b]dementia[/b]); 2) Supporters of the aforementioned forms of Statism (e.g. [b]evil[/b]) ; or 3) Just plain, irretrievably, [b]stupid[/b].
2Hotel9
· 2 years ago
will, here is a hint. Getting your Climatological information from the SanFran Gate is a sure sign you ain't got a clue. How is "dust" warming Phobos and Deimos? Did Dr Fenton mention that small detail?
And Dave the IndCon, welcome to SA. You sound like a man who has had to deal with a leftard or two in your time.
2Hotel9
· 2 years ago
And will, to address your first alphabetical vomitus at the top of this thread, that "weatherman" is a world renowned Climatologist. Unlike Algore, the Goreacle of Carthage.
The Whistler
· 2 years ago
Apparently this guy's the most accurate when it comes to predicting tornadoes.
And Gore is the most inaccurate when he talks about anything.
And of course we've caught Gore lying through his teeth about this, the last one I posted on was the polar bear photo.
docdave
· 2 years ago
For those that may have forgotten or have not noticed that little firey ball in the sky, all life on this planet, which includes our climate, is at the mercy of that seemingly little ball of fire, our sun. Anything we do which might affect our climate is grossly insignificant compared to the affects of minor changes in our suns radiation. Therefore it seems that our attention should be focus on the sun and not on the trivial like human additions to CO2 levels. From Viewpoint: The Sun and climate change
[quote]One of the effects that cosmic rays have is to influence how cloudy the Earth is.
So if the Sun undergoes long-term changes in activity - which it does - the amount of cosmic rays reaching the Earth will also vary over the same timescale, and so will the planet's overall cloudiness[/quote]
Will
· 2 years ago
[quote]Getting your Climatological information from the SanFran Gate is a sure sign you ain't got a clue.[/quote]
The information in the article came from an article published in Nature, but you can't get to that without a subscription:
[quote]A report on Mars and its global warming is being published today in the journal Nature, by Lori Fenton, a planetary geologist with the SETI Institute's Carl Sagan Center in Mountain View, together with Robert M. Haberle, a climate model expert at NASA's Ames Research Center, and Paul Geissler, a Mars specialist at the U.S. Geological Survey in Flagstaff, Ariz.[/quote]
As I pointed out before, the major science organizations in the world support the proposition of AGW (anthropogenic global warming). I linked to the IPCC above. I also cited the National Academy of Science and The American Association for the Advancement of Science.
[quote]The names of the purveyors of this sham would be nice. You mean an artificial degree for an artificial institution professing an artificial thesis would be nice. Names? Institutions? Areas of expertise? [/quote]
Eneils Bailey was asking above for names of Climate Scientists who agree with AGW. The full version of the the IPCC Fourth Report is not available online yet, but you can see the list of authors and reviewers of the "scientific basis" section of the 3rd Report [url=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/558.htm]here [/url]and [url=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/559.htm]here[/url]. Those lists would be good starting points.
Readers of this blog like to criticize the IPCC, but the Dept of Energy under Bush is not shy about [url=http://www.doe.gov/media/FactSheetOnGlobalClimateChange.pdf]showing its support[/url]: [quote]The Bush Administration continues to support and embrace the work of the IPCC and the science behind their most recent report. The U.S. has been a full participant in the development of the Fourth Assessment Report because the President believes that a better understanding of climate science is an important input into the policy process.
Numerous U.S. scientists, both within government and in the private sector, helped draft and review the report, while federal climate observation networks, computer modeling labs, and research programs provided much of the data and analysis on which the report is based.
A NOAA scientist, Dr. Susan Solomon, served as the co-chair of Working Group I, helping to lead the development of the report.
U.S. review of the report was conducted in a transparent and comprehensive manner, in which scientists both within the Federal government and outside were given the opportunity to provide comments.[/quote]
Now, do you still believe that there's no scientfic consensus around AGW?
robert108
· 2 years ago
[quote]Now, do you still believe that there's no scientfic consensus around AGW?[/quote]
Proof makes consensus irrelevant, and lack of proof cannot be made up for by any amount of consensus, when it comes to science.
[quote]The Bush Administration continues to support and embrace the work of the IPCC and the science behind their most recent report. [/quote]
Do you accept anything else that the Bush Administration supports? If not, why use them as a reference here? Unless you are a supporter of the Bush Administration, cherry-picking one thing that agrees with your prejudices is simply hypocritical.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
Will:
The cause, according to Fenton, is a combination of high Martian winds that periodically scour bright sand and dust from many rocky surface regions, fierce Martian "dust devils," similar to those that whip desert sands on Earth, and truly major dust storms like the one in 2001 that began inside the crater called Hellas Basin and then literally wrapped itself around the planet before subsiding.
This, my friend, is what we call a "hypothesis". It's not proof, but one of at least three explanations for the observed warming trend.
robert108
· 2 years ago
Carrick: And of course, the simplest and most likely true explanation is variation in the Sun's energy. That doesn't agree with the globalwarmingists, though...
Carrick
· 2 years ago
Ironically, the US was responsible for rescuing the IPCC report from a last minute derailment from China and several Middle Eastern countries.
And I would like to repeat my comment that the consensus is this (borrowed from Will):
greenhouse gases from human activity are warming the planet and will have negative long-term consequences.
Yes there are some scientists who question even this, but I'd put the ratio at 95% for and 5% against.
The rub is how much of the warming that is observed is human generated and how large the potentially negative consequences will be.
Let's be clear, CO2 is not an energy source. Principally, we have the Sun and the Earth's geothermal activity (driven by radioactive decay) as the main two contributions. If the solar luminance were to drop again, like it did during the Little Ice Age, the Earth will grow cooler in spite of the human generated CO2.
So the key questions are a long way from resolution, especially with regard to the potentially negative consequences.
2Hotel9
· 2 years ago
And to base massive reductions in human activities, namely industrial and agricultural, upon a biased report written and supported by individuals paid specifically to issue a report that validates pre-ordained conclusions put forward by a quasi-governmental organization is NOT in the longterm best interests of the human race as a whole. Or of the citizens of the United States, seeing as these reductions are aimed primarily at us.
Will
· 2 years ago
[quote]Do you accept anything else that the Bush Administration supports? If not, why use them as a reference here?[/quote]
The point is that [i]even Bush[/i] has had to throw in the towel and side with the IPCC in the face of the overwhelming scientific consensus. If there were any doubt that the IPCC legitimately represents the worldwide scientific mainstream consensus, Bush would be against the IPCC.
Remember this is the same administration that appointed [url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8137646/]oil industry lobbyist Phillip Cooney [/url]as chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality:
[quote]A senior official at the White House Council on Environmental Quality has resigned, days after a newspaper reported he changed some government reports to downplay links between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
Philip Cooney, the council's chief of staff and a former energy industry lobbyist, resigned on Friday, two days after The New York Times reported he edited some descriptions of climate research in a way that cast doubt on links between greenhouse gas emissions and rising temperatures. [/quote]
Carrick, thanks for being a voice of reason here:
[quote]Yes there are some scientists who question even this, but I'd put the ratio at 95% for and 5% against.[/quote]
I think you and I are really not that far apart on AGW.
robert108
· 2 years ago
Will: It's just weak to declare a hypothesis to be true [i]by consensus[/i]. That's just playing politics. Before we give in to the rampant chickenlittleism of Al Gore and his disciples, let's at least try to prove something here, rather than simply taking a poll of people who claim to be scientists. Here's a suggestion: Take the total amount of heat energy on the Earth, subtract the natural part(Sun, geothermal), and what is left is probably anthropogenic. Even if you got any sort of result, it would still be guesswork how that would affect either the weather or the climate at all. It would be a scientific first step, though. How about a replicable cause and effect mechanism between atmospheric CO2 and global temp? If there really is a dependable relationship, it should be quantifiable. As far as the political question is concerned, I only like two things the Bush Administration has done: tax rate cuts and the war and reconstruction in Iraq. Other than that, this administration is a strikeout. Much better than any Dem admin, but still not so good.
robert108
· 2 years ago
[quote]Remember this is the same administration that appointed oil industry lobbyist Phillip Cooney as chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality:[/quote]
Will: Here you seem to be saying that the Bush Admin is crooked and dishonest, and yet now that they agree with you on GW, they're suddenly honest and forthright. What gives? They can't both be true, can they?
Proof
· 2 years ago
[quote]Minneapolis: Coldest April Easter in 57 years Atlanta: Coldest Easter Sunday in 120 years.[/quote] [i]Damn[/i] that global warming!
Carrick
· 2 years ago
Will:
I think you and I are really not that far apart on AGW.
On some aspects that's probably right. On others, I don't know your position, so I can't judge.
I'm more of a skeptic of how it is being portrayed in the media, by policy makers and by environmentalists, as well as many of their motives, than by how scientists view it, or their motives.
It's easy to loose sight of the fact that how something gets portrayed by advocates is often different than how the science is really seen within a field.
I think on that last point most people on this blog will agree.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
Robert108 the problem with what you ask is the models can't provide that information. There are still too many problems that haven't been fully sorted out, such as even elementary ones like cloud formation and precipitation.
You'd think these would have been worked out, wouldn't you? The fact they haven't is exhibited on an almost daily basis by erroneous weather forecasts.
(And if the only difference between weather and climate is climate is e.g. a long-term average of weather, if you can't get weather right, getting climate right is then hopeless, since the average of garbage is still garbage.)
The Whistler
· 2 years ago
That's really interesting Carrick.
That's the way I started thinking about global warming. Then some folks said it's easier to predict the climate than the weather which didn't make much sense to me.
I've learned a lot in your posts so keep up the good work.
robert108
· 2 years ago
Carrick: Thanks for the clarification. In light of what you wrote, isn't it just a bit disingenuous to preach AGW from the rooftops? I think so. We have a long way to go before there will ever be any solid proof of this, and I doubt that there ever will be, because I think the basic premise, that humans can affect the weather/climate is dead wrong. I think doing the first calculation I requested will reveal the miniscule contribution we make to overall global temp, if any. My own methodological thinking has led me to the same conclusion about the relationship between climate and weather; it just makes sense. Thanks for the corroboration.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
TW:
That's the way I started thinking about global warming. Then some folks said it's easier to predict the climate than the weather which didn't make much sense to me.
What they actually do is use a mesoscale weather model, like MM5, to predict cloud formation. While it gets it "generally right", it doesn't get the details in the structure of clouds well enough to give accurate predictions for climate. The issue is the formation of high-level clouds, because thin, high level clouds increase the greenhouse gas effect, thicker ones actually attenuate it.
Beyond that, models like MM5 completely fail to accurately predict when precipitation will occur.
More detailed models, based on a method called the "large eddy simulation" (LES), can get very accurate cloud formation, but they require breaking the atmosphere down into too many computational elements and too much computation time for this to be used in real-time mesoscale modeling. And certainly this involves way too small a scale for any current computers for global climatology. But basically, while these simulations are accurate enough, they really don't answer any why things are happening sorts of questions that could lead to more compact "larger-scale" models that could be used for climatology. As such, they are mostly a short-cut to obtaining fine-grid data for the planetary boundary layer that includes realistic spatial and temporal correlations between various quantities, rather than having to make lots of measurements. (Apologies if this got a bit too jargonish.)
You'll find, if you look, that most of the "predictions" of climate models, like more extreme weather changes, major drought, etc., are actually assumptions that the models are tuned to exhibit, to start with. Or at least that's my understand from reading the literature.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
R108:
In light of what you wrote, isn't it just a bit disingenuous to preach AGW from the rooftops?
Actually I call it "lying". My Dad (a strong democrat) objects to that choice of words, but basically if you are a) exaggerating what other people are saying then b) attributing your exaggerated scenarios to them...
... then what else is it?
The Whistler
· 2 years ago
Carrick it seems to me that before we take any action to lessen global warming we should demand that they prove their models right.
It seems to me they should predict the weather (climate) for a number of years. They also need to demonstrate that global warming is changing the established weather patterns (such as El Nino).
If they prove their models to be right, then doubting Thomas's like me should be ready to change our point of view.
So show me proof, not scare tactics!
docdave
· 2 years ago
I don't know of any weather prediction models that can give accurate long range weather predictions better than the Farmers Almanac. Even in short range (less than 1 month), meteorologists will consult several models predicting the weather from the majority vote.
robert108
· 2 years ago
Without a proven and quantifiable cause and effect relationship, sucessful prediction might just as well be coincidence. Black cats=bad luck; stuff like that. In other words, superstition.
The Whistler
· 2 years ago
Robert, I guess that's where I was going with an explanation of where the weather would go without global warming.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
TW:
it seems to me that before we take any action to lessen global warming we should demand that they prove their models right.
From what I understand, any changes that we are going to make anytime soon will not likely fix the problems, which are a combination of the scale of the problem being too large to fit in any modern computer, and believe it or not, a lack of reliable detailed data for monitoring the current status of the Earth's climate.
This doesn't necessarily make things better though, because it means is releasing all of this CO2 into the atmosphere is an uncontrolled experiment, which we have reliable way of anticipating the results of. What that suggests to me is a need to moderate our CO2 emissions, at the least stabilize the rate of CO2 emissions.
I've argued against the Kyoto Protocols in the past as hopelessly flawed, and better at economic redistribution than at really solving the problem of CO2 emissions. Of course, for many policy makers, the latter is what matters anyway. For example, Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment (Calgary Herald, Dec 14, 1998):
No matter if the science of global warming is all phony [...] climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about social justice and equality in the world.
She sums up global climate change, the policy, better than I ever could.
What we have is a confluence of debatable but real concern that aligns with the interests of regulators wishing to expand the sphere of their control, politicians interested in global equity and environmentalists wishing to control "pollution". It is this resonance of personal interests of these groups and media that makes its dough off of scare stories that has created the sociological phenomenon of "consensus view global climate change".
Carrick
· 2 years ago
Oops, missed this important error. Should have read "This doesn't necessarily make things better though, because it means is releasing all of this CO2 into the atmosphere is an uncontrolled experiment, which we have no reliable way of anticipating the results of. "
2Hotel9
· 2 years ago
Carrick, you ought to do this for a living! Concise and easy to understand. I would not be surprised if the Goreacle was to issue a Fatwa on you.
will, you have yet to explain why objects outside of atmosphere are warming. I'd suggest a list of links to data in the Planetary Sciences section of nasa.gov but I doubt you would bother to read them.
Anyhoo, are y'all following developments at [url=http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stereo/main/index.html]STEREO?[/url] Come the 23rd of this month they are going to be running full orbital separation images. And [url=http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/solar-b/index.html]Hinode [/url]is already producing some startling data and images that are spectacular.
Ain't science grand?
Carrick
· 2 years ago
2Hotel9:
Carrick, you ought to do this for a living! Concise and easy to understand. I would not be surprised if the Goreacle was to issue a Fatwa on you.
Thanks, 2Hotel9. Especially the part about given al Gore ideas. ;-)
I actually do part of this for a living, since I write technical journal articles in peer reviewed journals (and one book). The intros are always about the most fun to write, because they have to be written for a more general audience. I don't usually go in much more detail than that about my personal bio, because of issues about not wanting to mix up my employer's views with my personal ones.
And of course because I find people who try and claim "voice of authority" obnoxious. This is part of what drives me crazy about the RealClimate guys trying to set themselves up on a pedestal (as I see it).
Carrick
· 2 years ago
2Hotel9, I've not had too much chance to follow STEREO yet.
I've been pretty enthralled though with the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiters images (can you believe 70 MB images???), and try to follow the Mars Rovers when I can.
[In] December 2004, the journal Science published a paper by Dr Naomi Oreskes, a professor in history at the University of California at San Diego. She claimed to have analysed the abstracts--using the key words ‘climate change'--of all the scientific papers listed on the ISI database for the decade 1993--2003. Seventy-five per cent of the 928 abstracts she analysed (that is, 695) fell into the category, ‘either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view'. For the first time, empirical evidence was presented that appeared to show a near unanimous scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming.
Dr Benny Peiser from John Moores University at Liverpool decided to replicate the study. He found that a search on the ISI database using the keywords ‘climate change' for the years 1993--2003 reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in question. Oreskes then admitted that she had used the keywords ‘global climate change'. This reduced the number of papers under review to 1,247, of which 1,117 had been abstracted.
Of all 1,117 abstracts, only 13 (one per cent) explicitly endorsed the ‘consensus view'. However, 34 abstracts rejected or questioned the view that human activities are the main driving force of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years'.
Oreskes claimed that ‘none of these papers argued [that current climate change is natural]'. However, 44 papers emphasised that natural factors play a major if not the key role in recent climate change.
Dr Peiser sent a letter to Science setting out the results of his investigation. Science refused to publish the letter.
The Oreskes study is still quoted as evidence supporting the ‘consensus' argument. A statement by the Royal Society in March 2005, for instance, used Oreskes' flawed study as a key argument in the climate change debate.
Damn, C! You are cutting into my Warcraft time! I'm going to start putting together a stock "globalclimateisgoingtokillusall" response. Something to paste right in to where ever needed. Hope you don't mind me stealing your links.
Without sounding whiny, the only thing about STEREO I am not impressed with is the cheesy 3D glasses gimmick. I'm hoping they will do something a bit less '50s-ish once it is up to speed.
I had not heard of unmannedspaceflight.com, the one thing I have found since going electronic is the MASSIVE data overload. Used to be I spent weeks and months going through the stacks and documents in library archives. Got me a nasty lung infection in the National Archives sub-annex in '96. Now I just don't have the time to cover everything available on any given subject. And that is exactly what the human caused GCC crowd is counting on.
Most people are not stupid(even though I often say so), they are simply overwhelmed with the vast abundance of data. And most of it is so tech-dense that the average highschool grad can make no sense of it. So the lowest common denominator strikes again.
And will? I got the latest IPCC fishwrap in PDF from the UN. Try through here. I am not giving you my inlink because it is user specific.
2Hotel9
· 2 years ago
Sorry, [url=http://www.unep.ch/]here.[/url]
2Hotel9
· 2 years ago
Damn! Open and provable bias at Science Magazine. Who'd a thunk it?
Carrick
· 2 years ago
Unfortunately the red-blue glasses are the only solution besides the cross-eyes technique that is really inexpensive.
By the way, I agree with your comments on information overload. The fellows on unmanned spaceflight basically help with this by sorting and analyzing the information for you.
I especially like the image compositions they do (combining multiple images into larger color shots). A lot of these guys have their own websites, that they link to within the USF website. One of my favorites:
Regarding the Science Mag, they got pissed at him because he circulated his letter on the web, probably including the initial referee reports, which are supposed to remain confidential.
Proof
· 2 years ago
[quote]temperatures dropped to [b]21[/b] degrees at 7 a.m. at [b]Charlotte[/b]/Douglas International Airport. That not only broke the low-temperature record for the date, but it was the coldest for any April day in Charlotte history. Previously, the coldest temperature ever recorded in the month of April was 24 degrees, on April 1, 1923.[/quote] [i]Damn[/i] that global warming! [url=http://charlotte.com/115/story/78479.html]Charlotte Observer[/url]
Carrick
· 2 years ago
You really can't relate short-term temperature swings to climate. That is a valid point regarding differences in weather and climate.
Even long dry spells or rainy periods can be related to locked in weather patterns due to high pressure ridges that have nothing to do with long-term climate change. The differences between the 2005 and 2006 hurricane seasons is a perfect example of that: The conditions that make hurricane formation ideal involve other factors than just global mean temperature. In fact global mean temperature isn't even one of the variables... it's local land and sea temperatures that matter, along with other factors that are only partially understood.
I realize that this factdoesn't stop the global warming advocates from using every weather swing that looks like warming or more violent weather from pointing to them as examples of global warming (and that includes even Michael Mann), so the irony isn't lost on me here!
Proof
· 2 years ago
[quote]You really can't relate short-term temperature swings to climate.[/quote] True! And my tongue is mostly in my cheek when I point these things out. But when it breaks an [b]84 year[/b] old record for cold, and it's the coldest in the recorded history of the state, even short term, that doesn't strike me as a [i]warming[/i] indicator! At least not recently...
Proof
· 2 years ago
[quote]Why did Gore say the debate is over?[/quote]
[quote]"Laurie David has almost single-handedly changed the debate on global warming." Roberta Myers, editor-in-chief Elle Magazine.[/quote]
How could she [i]change[/i] the debate if the debate is over?? Who Are you Going to Believe, indeed? [url=http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_read.asp?id=1156142202007]Stop Globaloney Warming (Caution: True believers at this site!)[/url]
Carrick
· 2 years ago
I think she should be commended for limiting her use of her private jet, don't you think?
goon
· 2 years ago
I think that is a joke, limo Liberal lecturing everyone else about their ussage of fuel and they are galivanting around the world in their private jets and living in mansions.
2Hotel9
· 2 years ago
Hey! Sorry I fell out of this thread. I was clearing the crap out of my inbox and found a couple of days worth of comment notifs.
Stop Globaloney is a real treasure, Proof. I think we should publish their gatherings schedule, make sure lots of the right people attend.
Carrick, I read an article at BBC about audio frequency harmonics generated by plasma loops on the surface of the Sun. How cool is that? I'll try to dig it out and link it.
2Hotel9
· 2 years ago
And [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6574059.stm]here [/url]you go! And the longrange [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]AAA[/url] service continues.
All Comments
You have to admit that this has reached the level of global insanity!
Who the hell are you to try to bring proof and science into this mass hysteria?
You are probably some right-wing, religious zealot, homophobic, wife-beating, child-abusing, home-schooling , meat-eating zealot that has no idea that the world will end next week unless we relinquish control of our lives to the prophet of impending doom, Algore....
Is it getting hot in here, or is that just me?
I hope wife-beating is one of them.
Andrew: When did you stop beating [i]your[/i] wife?
I just can't find myself taking Algore seriously. He is a joke, a throwback to activism of the sixties. His lilting, sing-songey voice, and effeteness, his desire to eventually grow up and become a man, just leaves me empty.
Too bad some people take this man and his ideas seriously.
Yeah, it's hard to believe that me cooking up a hunk of meat on my grill, cows farting, and driving my 350 horsepower engine to work is going to ruin the world.
My thoughts are the people that believe his bullshit will ruin the world.
Their perception of a political debate is to imagine what George Bush is for, and then find some personal attribute he possess that can justify their hatred of him and what he stands for; therefore a far-fetched idea, an inane conclusion, based on a drunken sense of superiority leads them to prophets such as Algore.
Whistler, Eneils Bailey, and their ilk choose the "science" of a weatherman over the work of the many hundreds of trained professional scientists who have devoted their lives to understanding the climate.
The worldwide consensus of the professional climate scientists is represented by the [url=http://www.ipcc.ch/]IPCC[/url].
And who am I going to believe? Not anyone at the UN, nor anyone they pay to reach conclusions that are preordained by committee. They could be standing in front of me on fire, tell me they are on fire, and I will still never believe a single word that comes from their mouths.
Just like Al Gore has "devoted his life", no doubt, to living a lifestyle commensurate with the size of the "crisis"!
[quote]trained professional [/quote] Bad scientist! No biscuit!
[quote]understanding the climate[/quote]
So, climate....tell me about your childhood!
[quote]Whistler... and their ilk[/quote]
Would that be "Wilk"?
1. There are many, accredited, reputable scientists having spoken out against [u]Human Caused[/u] Global Warning.
2. Most scientists in our nation and world, for various and sundry reasons are liberals, mostly because to gain tenure, get published and to maintain credibility within liberal academic circles, one must follow the current, narrow-minded, dictatorial liberal dogma or see their careers die. Even the Smithsonian will not publish or submit for peer review any scientific studies that oppose the [i][b]theory[/b][/i] of human caused global warming.
3. The International Pollution Prevention Control Organization is a wholly Leftist, European Sociaist construct and to serve European socialist goals they are forcing laws to be enacted to deal with a not yet unproven theory.
Who am I to try to convince you that a weatherman may know more about science than some third-rate, punk politician who finds a public forum every day to proclaim the "sky is falling."
Must be all those tons of CO2 that people have pumped into the atmosphere. Some fell on my cabbage patch today.
Yeah, hundreds of trained scientists may have voted to reach a concensus.
Please provide me with a list of of all those "Climate Scientists" and then I may think of you as being more than a emotional socialists who believes "the sky is falling."
Still waiting. A vote not Science.
Ignorance is not proof.
Are you still there?
Should we send out a search party with water and an umbrella?
While you are recuperating, I have some eighth grade science books that may explain climatology over the the last one thousand years.
I realize, to shitheads like you, and believing what you do, there was no history or scientific fact before you were born. Console yourself, there were actually things that happened, and consequences that we now endure that occur before your miserable existence on planet Earth.
What leads you to believe I ever stopped.
What leads you to believe I ever stopped. [/quote]
Thus, the effectiveness of the question!
You're kidding, right? Look, it's common knowledge that the vast majority of climate scientists believe that greenhouse gases from human activity are warming the planet and will have negative long-term consequences. Sure, there are some who disagree, but it's a small proportion.
In case you're NOT kidding, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change]here's[/url] a reference for you:
[quote]The only major scientific organization that rejects the finding of human influence on recent climate is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG).[/quote]
Hmm. You don't suppose the AAPG would have an agenda, do you?
Nieman -
[quote]The International Pollution Prevention Control Organization is a wholly Leftist, European Sociaist construct and to serve European socialist goals they are forcing laws to be enacted to deal with a not yet unproven theory.[/quote]
Um, well, that's interesting, but the organization that deals with climate change is the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change. You would know that if you followed my link. You should make sure you're smearing the right organization before you post. It will make you look less foolish.
This is somewhat of a strawman argument.
The article above was addressing people who exaggerate the risk of global climate change, and exaggerate the role of human generated CO2, not the obvious statement that the Earth is getting warmer, or the fact that human-generated greenhouse gases are playing a role in its warming.
In case you missed it: That quote could have come from me as well.
Nice how you are now trying to distinguish climate from weather, as if the distinction even mattered. No doubt you are dittoing a comment by Michael Mann on this. The only distinction that is meaningful between the two is length and time scales. The atmospheric physics equations are virtually the same. Even one of Mann's own links basically describes climate as a long-term average of weather.
The fact that Mann had to use the "Oh my God! He used the wrong word!" ad hominem to avoid addressing Crichton's points just shows how weak your side's arguments really are. It was never about science, it has always been about politics, policy and an inane desire to control the debate.
You don't really know anyone besides Algore right?
I'll give you a hint, the consensus is among socialists and non climate scientists.
Was is not "common knowledge" in the fourteenth century that sent Galileo to prison?
The Earth revolves around the Sun. Algore revolves around his own stupidity.
Yeah,
The names of the purveyors of this sham would be nice.
You mean an artificial degree for an artificial institution professing an artificial thesis would be nice.
Names?
Institutions?
Areas of expertise?
Please?
You are Bullshitting, just like Algore.
Since you have such intimate knowledge, may I call them collect?
[quote]the consensus is among socialists and non climate scientists[/quote]
Not according to your own federal government's [url=http://dels.nas.edu/basc/Climate-HIGH.pdf]National Academy of Sciences[/url]:
[quote]In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth's warming in recent decades has been caused
primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
(see Figure 1). Greenhouse gases have increased significantly since the Industrial Revolution,
mostly from the burning of fossil fuels for energy, industrial processes, and transportation.
Greenhouse gases are at their highest levels in at least 400,000 years and continue to rise.[/quote]
Or the The [url=http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf]American Association for the Advancement of Science[/url]:
[quote]The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.[/quote]
The excess heat from Al Gore's pool house [i]alone [/i]is heating Mars!
[quote]The cause, according to Fenton, is a combination of high Martian winds that periodically scour bright sand and dust from many rocky surface regions, fierce Martian "dust devils," similar to those that whip desert sands on Earth, and truly major dust storms like the one in 2001 that began inside the crater called Hellas Basin and then literally wrapped itself around the planet before subsiding.[/quote]
Kicked up by all those little Martian SUVs...damn off-roaders!
Spot-on, my friend.
To be Leftist is to have a skewed world view.
To be a Leftist, you must believe that Socialism is morally superior to Free Society (what Leftists derisively term [i]Capitalism[/i]) and at the same time, believe glaring historical facts like the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Book_of_Communism]millions slaughtered[/url] in places like the Soviet Union, National Socialist Germany, Red China, Cambodia, Vietnam, East Germany, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Nicaragua, Cuba, Angola, North Korea...etc... [i][url=http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/]don't really count[/url][/i].
This vastly simplifies the contrasts, but it shows that Leftists are:
1) In denial (a form of [b]dementia[/b]);
2) Supporters of the aforementioned forms of Statism (e.g. [b]evil[/b]) ; or
3) Just plain, irretrievably, [b]stupid[/b].
And Dave the IndCon, welcome to SA. You sound like a man who has had to deal with a leftard or two in your time.
And Gore is the most inaccurate when he talks about anything.
And of course we've caught Gore lying through his teeth about this, the last one I posted on was the polar bear photo.
[quote]One of the effects that cosmic rays have is to influence how cloudy the Earth is.
So if the Sun undergoes long-term changes in activity - which it does - the amount of cosmic rays reaching the Earth will also vary over the same timescale, and so will the planet's overall cloudiness[/quote]
The information in the article came from an article published in Nature, but you can't get to that without a subscription:
[quote]A report on Mars and its global warming is being published today in the journal Nature, by Lori Fenton, a planetary geologist with the SETI Institute's Carl Sagan Center in Mountain View, together with Robert M. Haberle, a climate model expert at NASA's Ames Research Center, and Paul Geissler, a Mars specialist at the U.S. Geological Survey in Flagstaff, Ariz.[/quote]
[quote]You don't really know anyone besides Algore right?[/quote]
As I pointed out before, the major science organizations in the world support the proposition of AGW (anthropogenic global warming). I linked to the IPCC above. I also cited the National Academy of Science and The American Association for the Advancement of Science.
[quote]The names of the purveyors of this sham would be nice.
You mean an artificial degree for an artificial institution professing an artificial thesis would be nice.
Names?
Institutions?
Areas of expertise? [/quote]
Eneils Bailey was asking above for names of Climate Scientists who agree with AGW. The full version of the the IPCC Fourth Report is not available online yet, but you can see the list of authors and reviewers of the "scientific basis" section of the 3rd Report [url=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/558.htm]here [/url]and [url=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/559.htm]here[/url]. Those lists would be good starting points.
Readers of this blog like to criticize the IPCC, but the Dept of Energy under Bush is not shy about [url=http://www.doe.gov/media/FactSheetOnGlobalClimateChange.pdf]showing its support[/url]:
[quote]The Bush Administration continues to support and embrace the work of the IPCC and the science behind their most recent report. The U.S. has been a full participant in the development of the Fourth Assessment Report because the President believes that a better understanding of climate science is an important input into the policy process.
Numerous U.S. scientists, both within government and in the private sector, helped draft and review the report, while federal climate observation networks, computer modeling labs, and research programs provided much of the data and analysis on which the report is based.
A NOAA scientist, Dr. Susan Solomon, served as the co-chair of Working Group I, helping to lead the development of the report.
U.S. review of the report was conducted in a transparent and comprehensive manner, in which scientists both within the Federal government and outside were given the opportunity to provide comments.[/quote]
Now, do you still believe that there's no scientfic consensus around AGW?
Proof makes consensus irrelevant, and lack of proof cannot be made up for by any amount of consensus, when it comes to science.
[quote]The Bush Administration continues to support and embrace the work of the IPCC and the science behind their most recent report. [/quote]
Do you accept anything else that the Bush Administration supports? If not, why use them as a reference here? Unless you are a supporter of the Bush Administration, cherry-picking one thing that agrees with your prejudices is simply hypocritical.
And I would like to repeat my comment that the consensus is this (borrowed from Will):
Yes there are some scientists who question even this, but I'd put the ratio at 95% for and 5% against.
The rub is how much of the warming that is observed is human generated and how large the potentially negative consequences will be.
Let's be clear, CO2 is not an energy source. Principally, we have the Sun and the Earth's geothermal activity (driven by radioactive decay) as the main two contributions. If the solar luminance were to drop again, like it did during the Little Ice Age, the Earth will grow cooler in spite of the human generated CO2.
So the key questions are a long way from resolution, especially with regard to the potentially negative consequences.
The point is that [i]even Bush[/i] has had to throw in the towel and side with the IPCC in the face of the overwhelming scientific consensus. If there were any doubt that the IPCC legitimately represents the worldwide scientific mainstream consensus, Bush would be against the IPCC.
Remember this is the same administration that appointed [url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8137646/]oil industry lobbyist Phillip Cooney [/url]as chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality:
[quote]A senior official at the White House Council on Environmental Quality has resigned, days after a newspaper reported he changed some government reports to downplay links between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
Philip Cooney, the council's chief of staff and a former energy industry lobbyist, resigned on Friday, two days after The New York Times reported he edited some descriptions of climate research in a way that cast doubt on links between greenhouse gas emissions and rising temperatures.
[/quote]
Carrick, thanks for being a voice of reason here:
[quote]Yes there are some scientists who question even this, but I'd put the ratio at 95% for and 5% against.[/quote]
I think you and I are really not that far apart on AGW.
Here's a suggestion: Take the total amount of heat energy on the Earth, subtract the natural part(Sun, geothermal), and what is left is probably anthropogenic. Even if you got any sort of result, it would still be guesswork how that would affect either the weather or the climate at all. It would be a scientific first step, though. How about a replicable cause and effect mechanism between atmospheric CO2 and global temp? If there really is a dependable relationship, it should be quantifiable.
As far as the political question is concerned, I only like two things the Bush Administration has done: tax rate cuts and the war and reconstruction in Iraq. Other than that, this administration is a strikeout. Much better than any Dem admin, but still not so good.
Will: Here you seem to be saying that the Bush Admin is crooked and dishonest, and yet now that they agree with you on GW, they're suddenly honest and forthright. What gives? They can't both be true, can they?
Atlanta: Coldest Easter Sunday in 120 years.[/quote]
[i]Damn[/i] that global warming!
On some aspects that's probably right. On others, I don't know your position, so I can't judge.
I'm more of a skeptic of how it is being portrayed in the media, by policy makers and by environmentalists, as well as many of their motives, than by how scientists view it, or their motives.
It's easy to loose sight of the fact that how something gets portrayed by advocates is often different than how the science is really seen within a field.
I think on that last point most people on this blog will agree.
You'd think these would have been worked out, wouldn't you? The fact they haven't is exhibited on an almost daily basis by erroneous weather forecasts.
(And if the only difference between weather and climate is climate is e.g. a long-term average of weather, if you can't get weather right, getting climate right is then hopeless, since the average of garbage is still garbage.)
That's the way I started thinking about global warming. Then some folks said it's easier to predict the climate than the weather which didn't make much sense to me.
I've learned a lot in your posts so keep up the good work.
My own methodological thinking has led me to the same conclusion about the relationship between climate and weather; it just makes sense. Thanks for the corroboration.
What they actually do is use a mesoscale weather model, like MM5, to predict cloud formation. While it gets it "generally right", it doesn't get the details in the structure of clouds well enough to give accurate predictions for climate. The issue is the formation of high-level clouds, because thin, high level clouds increase the greenhouse gas effect, thicker ones actually attenuate it.
Beyond that, models like MM5 completely fail to accurately predict when precipitation will occur.
More detailed models, based on a method called the "large eddy simulation" (LES), can get very accurate cloud formation, but they require breaking the atmosphere down into too many computational elements and too much computation time for this to be used in real-time mesoscale modeling. And certainly this involves way too small a scale for any current computers for global climatology. But basically, while these simulations are accurate enough, they really don't answer any why things are happening sorts of questions that could lead to more compact "larger-scale" models that could be used for climatology. As such, they are mostly a short-cut to obtaining fine-grid data for the planetary boundary layer that includes realistic spatial and temporal correlations between various quantities, rather than having to make lots of measurements. (Apologies if this got a bit too jargonish.)
You'll find, if you look, that most of the "predictions" of climate models, like more extreme weather changes, major drought, etc., are actually assumptions that the models are tuned to exhibit, to start with. Or at least that's my understand from reading the literature.
... then what else is it?
It seems to me they should predict the weather (climate) for a number of years. They also need to demonstrate that global warming is changing the established weather patterns (such as El Nino).
If they prove their models to be right, then doubting Thomas's like me should be ready to change our point of view.
So show me proof, not scare tactics!
From what I understand, any changes that we are going to make anytime soon will not likely fix the problems, which are a combination of the scale of the problem being too large to fit in any modern computer, and believe it or not, a lack of reliable detailed data for monitoring the current status of the Earth's climate.
This doesn't necessarily make things better though, because it means is releasing all of this CO2 into the atmosphere is an uncontrolled experiment, which we have reliable way of anticipating the results of. What that suggests to me is a need to moderate our CO2 emissions, at the least stabilize the rate of CO2 emissions.
I've argued against the Kyoto Protocols in the past as hopelessly flawed, and better at economic redistribution than at really solving the problem of CO2 emissions. Of course, for many policy makers, the latter is what matters anyway. For example, Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment (Calgary Herald, Dec 14, 1998):
She sums up global climate change, the policy, better than I ever could.
What we have is a confluence of debatable but real concern that aligns with the interests of regulators wishing to expand the sphere of their control, politicians interested in global equity and environmentalists wishing to control "pollution". It is this resonance of personal interests of these groups and media that makes its dough off of scare stories that has created the sociological phenomenon of "consensus view global climate change".
will, you have yet to explain why objects outside of atmosphere are warming. I'd suggest a list of links to data in the Planetary Sciences section of nasa.gov but I doubt you would bother to read them.
Anyhoo, are y'all following developments at [url=http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stereo/main/index.html]STEREO?[/url] Come the 23rd of this month they are going to be running full orbital separation images. And [url=http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/solar-b/index.html]Hinode [/url]is already producing some startling data and images that are spectacular.
Ain't science grand?
I actually do part of this for a living, since I write technical journal articles in peer reviewed journals (and one book). The intros are always about the most fun to write, because they have to be written for a more general audience. I don't usually go in much more detail than that about my personal bio, because of issues about not wanting to mix up my employer's views with my personal ones.
And of course because I find people who try and claim "voice of authority" obnoxious. This is part of what drives me crazy about the RealClimate guys trying to set themselves up on a pedestal (as I see it).
I've been pretty enthralled though with the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiters images (can you believe 70 MB images???), and try to follow the Mars Rovers when I can.
I actually prefer the forum Unmanned Spaceflight for that.
Here's Peiser's original letter if you would prefer that to the Lavoisier narrative.
Without sounding whiny, the only thing about STEREO I am not impressed with is the cheesy 3D glasses gimmick. I'm hoping they will do something a bit less '50s-ish once it is up to speed.
I had not heard of unmannedspaceflight.com, the one thing I have found since going electronic is the MASSIVE data overload. Used to be I spent weeks and months going through the stacks and documents in library archives. Got me a nasty lung infection in the National Archives sub-annex in '96. Now I just don't have the time to cover everything available on any given subject. And that is exactly what the human caused GCC crowd is counting on.
Most people are not stupid(even though I often say so), they are simply overwhelmed with the vast abundance of data. And most of it is so tech-dense that the average highschool grad can make no sense of it. So the lowest common denominator strikes again.
And will? I got the latest IPCC fishwrap in PDF from the UN. Try through here. I am not giving you my inlink because it is user specific.
By the way, I agree with your comments on information overload. The fellows on unmanned spaceflight basically help with this by sorting and analyzing the information for you.
I especially like the image compositions they do (combining multiple images into larger color shots). A lot of these guys have their own websites, that they link to within the USF website. One of my favorites:
<img src="http://www.marsgeo.com/Photos/Spirit/BestColour/s708_ElDorado3_s.jpg">
That not only broke the low-temperature record for the date, but it was the coldest for any April day in Charlotte history.
Previously, the coldest temperature ever recorded in the month of April was 24 degrees, on April 1, 1923.[/quote]
[i]Damn[/i] that global warming!
[url=http://charlotte.com/115/story/78479.html]Charlotte Observer[/url]
Even long dry spells or rainy periods can be related to locked in weather patterns due to high pressure ridges that have nothing to do with long-term climate change. The differences between the 2005 and 2006 hurricane seasons is a perfect example of that: The conditions that make hurricane formation ideal involve other factors than just global mean temperature. In fact global mean temperature isn't even one of the variables... it's local land and sea temperatures that matter, along with other factors that are only partially understood.
I realize that this factdoesn't stop the global warming advocates from using every weather swing that looks like warming or more violent weather from pointing to them as examples of global warming (and that includes even Michael Mann), so the irony isn't lost on me here!
True! And my tongue is mostly in my cheek when I point these things out. But when it breaks an [b]84 year[/b] old record for cold, and it's the coldest in the recorded history of the state, even short term, that doesn't strike me as a [i]warming[/i] indicator! At least not recently...
[quote]"Laurie David has almost single-handedly changed the debate on global warming." Roberta Myers, editor-in-chief Elle Magazine.[/quote]
How could she [i]change[/i] the debate if the debate is over?? Who Are you Going to Believe, indeed?
[url=http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_read.asp?id=1156142202007]Stop Globaloney Warming (Caution: True believers at this site!)[/url]
Stop Globaloney is a real treasure, Proof. I think we should publish their gatherings schedule, make sure lots of the right people attend.
Carrick, I read an article at BBC about audio frequency harmonics generated by plasma loops on the surface of the Sun. How cool is that? I'll try to dig it out and link it.