The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[mentholated]

The earth, just like any other organic entity, goes through different phases of behavior. It is very naive to think that we completely understand the behavior of the earth and the entities of this solar system. Global warming is just a marketing term used by corporations to make money from the fear of something people don't even have the slightest grasp of understanding. Think about it.. if the earth is in such DANGER, anything that contributes to the "cause" of that danger is going to go up in price. People will seek alternatives to it, and the people that provide those alternatives make all of the money.

If anything, we're most likely purposefully inducing global warming because we already know that the earth is capable of maintaining homeostasis to a very high threshold before the system completely collapses. The earth is not as fragile as you may think.

This is about profit and war, not ecology, nor survival.

[Cowtipper]

Originally Posted by mentholated

The earth, just like any other organic entity, goes through different phases of behavior. It is very naive to think that we completely understand the behavior of the earth and the entities of this solar system. Global warming is just a marketing term used by corporations to make money from the fear of something people don't even have the slightest grasp of understanding. Think about it.. if the earth is in such DANGER, anything that contributes to the "cause" of that danger is going to go up in price. People will seek alternatives to it, and the people that provide those alternatives make all of the money.

If anything, we're most likely purposefully inducing global warming because we already know that the earth is capable of maintaining homeostasis to a very high threshold before the system completely collapses. The earth is not as fragile as you may think.

This is about profit and war, not ecology, nor survival.

You know what? That is my opinion exactly! With a dozen of more things to put in! You rule! \o/

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

The Oregon Petition, now signed by over 19,000 American scientists

Yes, like "Perry S. Mason", "Michael J. Fox", "John C. Grisham", "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and Drs. "Frank Burns", "B. J. Honeycutt", and "Benjamin Pierce". In addition, you might be interested in the questionable methods used to accumulate these signatures.

Regardless, I wouldn't be surprised if you could find 19,000 American scientists who didn't believe in human caused global warming. It would be inconvenient and a lot of people wouldn't want it to be true.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

Open Letter to the Canadian Prime Minister (60 various earth and climate scientists)

This letter's grand hand-wave without foundation aside, it is not signed by only earth and climate scientists.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

BBC - The Great Global Warming Swindle

I don't think I've seen such dishonest tripe since "What the Bleep Do We Know!?" To illustrate, let me comment on your quotes from the movie that aren't just opinion presented as fact.

> "The total concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is just 0.054%, a very minuscule amount. Humans contribute much less than 1% of that."

Buzz! I'm sorry, but the correct answer is that humans are responsible for about 35% of the current carbon dioxide concentrations.

> "Solar activity is currently at an extremely high level, and is directly linked to changes in global temperature.

Ooh, so close but the World Radiation Center shows that we were almost at a minimum of solar irradiance in March of 2007 when the movie was first aired. Thanks for playing.

If you want more information on the flat out lies in this film just do a Google search on the film's title.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

BTW, interesting revisionist history on Dr Stephen Schneider's website there....did he or did he not write "The Genesis Strategy" in 1976, warning of the coming glaciation...

Dr. Stephen Schneider did write "The Genesis Strategy" but it did not warn of a "coming glaciation" or ice age. Consider this quote from pages 180 and 181:

State-of-the-art climate models unequivocally predict that such a doubling of CO2 would raise the surface temperature of the earth. Although these predictions vary considerably, probably the best order of magnitude estimate that can be made today is for a surface warming by some 1.5 to 3K globally... But the long-term aerosol record for the globe is far from clear.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

...(He) also wrote glowing a testimonial on the back cover of a popular `Ice Age' book of the time - (Ponte, Lowell. "The Cooling", Prentice Hall, N.J., USA, 1976), in which the author claimed that the climatic cooling from 1940 to the 1970s was but the precursor to the main event - the coming Ice Age.

This is true and the endorsement is unfortunate since "The Cooling" was simply a bad book as it twisted existing knowledge. However, Dr. Schneider's testimonial was hardly "glowing":

The dramatic importance of climate changes to the worlds future has been dangerously underestimated by many, often because we have been lulled by modern technology into thinking we have conquered nature. But this well-written book points out in clear language that the climatic threat could be as awesome as any we might face, and that massive world-wide actions to hedge against that threat deserve immeadiate consideration. At a minimum, public awareness of the possibilities must commence, and Lowell Ponte's provocative work is a good place to start.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

To be honest I don't care what they support or don't support aside from global warming.

Right, who cares about the details as long as the trains run on time?

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

If the IPCC has a "consensus" list where "scientists" need to legally threaten to get their name removed, I can supply a list of "scientists" with an equal level of integrity.

It's a good thing you only offered an equal level of integrity.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

Special emphasis on the portion of the kindergarten-level-flowchart that says what to do when your hypothesis is deemed "partially true".

I'm glad to see you're putting your kindergarten education to work. Now be sure to share and hold hands while crossing the street or you won't get your milk and cookies before nap time.

Meanwhile the rest of us will be using the big people's scientific method which includes abductive reasoning.

Although I would like a cookie. Would you share please?

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

I still say that the measurement of the data is what's wrong fundamentally.
*snip*
I would say that without a doubt that we were unable to accurately measure temperature to less than 1 degree C until ~1960's.

I think you're confusing accuracy and precision. While I think the alcohol and mercury thermometers had some error, they were very consistent and very good indicators at changes in temperature.

I also think it's funny that you believe these readings are "wrong fundamentally" when used to support global warming but worthy of note when your Excel spreadsheet showed "the average global temperature was a near complete flatline".

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

Don't even talk to me about the estimation of historical temperature data, it's uncertainty is beyond unacceptable to the point of speculation.

And your evidence for this is...?

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

In any case, the entire point of this mess is that we have good data for maybe 30-40 years, which on a global scale is a really short period of time to observe any trend in order to draw conclusions.

Which you know because...?


GhostintheShell, I'm glad to see you posting some links to outside sources but I have yet to see anything that really supports your positions. Let me remind you of what they are:

1) You said climate scientists ignore half the facts that dispute global warming.
2) You said the IPCC predicted a global sea level rise of 2 to 6 feet.
3) You said current sea level rise estimates do not fully consider Antarctica's growth.
4) You said man made global warming is "improbable in every possible aspect".
5) You said the global warming science is "bad, really bad".

(I assumed you wanted to retract your statements about it being "laughable" that the full melting of the Greenland ice sheet would cause a sea level rise of 20 feet, that the IPCC didn't mention the unknowns regarding glacier motion and that Dr. Schneider was an advocate of global cooling. Just say so if I'm mistaken.)

And with these last few posts you've claimed:

6) The uncertainty of historical temperature data is practically speculation.
7) 30-40 years is not enough time to draw conclusions regarding climate trends.

GhostintheShell, do you have any evidence for these statements at all?

bkelly

[bkelly]

Hey Kerostasis,

One of my co-workers just returned from the American Geophysical Union fall meeting in San Fransisco and mentioned a study done comparing the current Greenland melt to that of the 1930s. Using very non-scientific sources (old maps, people recollection and expedition logs) it was found that the recent melting mimics the one eighty years ago.

The current theory is that currents can block outside temperature differences allowing Greenland to stay colder than its surroundings. The melting in the 30s could have been from a breakdown in those currents.

A quick overview of the study can be found here.

bkelly

[Kerostasis]

Neat. Thanks for the link.

[GhostintheShell]

This is why I shouldn't bother to get involved in these debates. No one wins in the end, you answer my posts like a seagull.

The very point I was trying to make about the two lists is that they are both full of crap. One list has names of valid scientists alongside names like "I.C. Weiner" on it, and the other has for one example a renowned scientist who literally had to get a court order to have their name removed as a contributor because they so strongly disagreed with the conclusions, and numerous other scientists that are on a list of "reviewers" that had no idea they were included as "supporters" until they read that they were on the list. Who list has more integrity? Neither, but I assume from your reply that you failed to make that connection.

I presented a valid view point that fundamentally the temperature measurement data is incorrect because of its enormously high level of uncertainty. (Until perhaps the last 40 years when high accuracy thermometry progressed outside of controlled lab experiments and into mainstream commercial availability.) My view point is from a person who is involved with thermometry as a sizable part of my daily routine, and who fully understands the science and history of thermometry.

Learn what an "estimated uncertainty budget" is, then produce one for an alcohol thermometer produced in 1800's with multiple untrained volunteer observer's, and then produce one for the tree ring data or ice core samples or however you would like to guess at the average temperature in the winter of 1492. The estimated uncertainty error is totally unacceptable, and you are unable to draw conclusions based on data with such a high uncertainty. Your theory fails when the data is unable to support it.

I produce uncertainty budgets for the measurements that I perform literally on a daily basis. Primarily we do this so we can better understand the major contributors to measurement uncertainty. This is the only true way to know if your measurements are worth the paper they are written on. If you try to claim a temperature change of 0.2C per decade, you can't have an estimated uncertainty of 1.0C or more, you have to have an estimated uncertainty much smaller than what you are claiming in order to reliably state anything from the data.

This thread is deadlocked and I won't contribute to it any further, especially in light of your insulting comments and aggravating and argumentative manner. This is not the way to sell the theory of man made global warming, at least not to me if you want me to listen.

[mentholated]

Can any of you prove that anything anyone knows is fact? Can you even prove that whats written down as history is fact? Sorry, this is kind of off topic but I see people trying to prove that global warming is caused by humans primarily just by citing a bunch of scientists who think so. Unless you know what methods they themselves used to come to that conclusion, their opinions all mean absolutely nothing. Opinion is easily manipulated. I can make you think its both 1 & 2 just by widening the hour hand, if I want to.

By the way, precision and accuracy are the same thing. You cannot be accurate without precision, nor can accuracy be precise.

[GlobalWarmin]

For the record, bkelly is my hero.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by mentholated

Can any of you prove that anything anyone knows is fact?

Mentholated, I'm not asking for proof. I'm asking for one piece of external evidence for his assertions.

Originally Posted by mentholated

Unless you know what methods they themselves used to come to that conclusion, their opinions all mean absolutely nothing. Opinion is easily manipulated.

You're absolutely right which is why external, verifiable evidence is important to me. Without it, both my and GhostintheShell's assertions mean absolutely nothing.

Originally Posted by mentholated

By the way, precision and accuracy are the same thing.

They're not. Precision describes the differences you will see with repeated measurements. Accuracy is how correct those measurements will be in the first place.

For example, consider a clock with a second hand. With it I discover an event is happening every 3 minutes and 28 seconds, something that's easy to do because a second hand is precise. GhostintheShell is saying my measurement is wrong because the clock's second hand is 25 seconds off from the actual time, a question of the clock's accuracy.

Make sense?

bkelly

[mentholated]

Originally Posted by bkelly

Mentholated, I'm not asking for proof. I'm asking for one piece of external evidence for his assertions.



You're absolutely right which is why external, verifiable evidence is important to me. Without it, both my and GhostintheShell's assertions mean absolutely nothing.



They're not. Precision describes the differences you will see with repeated measurements. Accuracy is how correct those measurements will be in the first place.

For example, consider a clock with a second hand. With it I discover an event is happening every 3 minutes and 28 seconds, something that's easy to do because a second hand is precise. GhostintheShell is saying my measurement is wrong because the clock's second hand is 25 seconds off from the actual time, a question of the clock's accuracy.

Make sense?

bkelly

IF you're going to quote me, at least quote everything.

By the way, precision and accuracy are the same thing. You cannot be accurate without precision, nor can accuracy be precise.

[Kerostasis]

Originally Posted by mentholated

IF you're going to quote me, at least quote everything.

By the way, precision and accuracy are the same thing. You cannot be accurate without precision, nor can accuracy be precise.

Every high school science course gives you a lesson somewhere in there on how Precision and Accuracy are not the same thing, and have distinct and separate meanings. You can have Precision without Accuracy, and you can have Accuracy without Precision.

Side note to B-kelly -- Ghost is complaining more about the Precision of your clock than the Accuracy.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

Side note to B-kelly -- Ghost is complaining more about the Precision of your clock than the Accuracy.

I don't think so because he keeps talking about an uncertainty of at least 1 degree C. Old alcohol and mercury thermometers had accuracy problems because every glass tube came out a little different. For a quality thermometer, I think an accuracy problem of 1 degree C is high but not unreasonable.

But the precision of these thermometers was much better because they're sealed and easily readable, somewhere between a tenth and a few hundredths of a degree. Unfortunately I've not been able to find good numbers on the old equipment.

bkelly

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

...you answer my posts like a seagull.

*scratches his head*

Um, I soar in the wind, make lots of noise and then poop on your head?

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

...a renowned scientist who literally had to get a court order to have their name removed as a contributor because they so strongly disagreed with the conclusions...

And you've modified "the facts" to support you're side a little more. Previously you said Paul Reiter had to "legally threaten" to get his name removed. Now he not only had to get a court order and his motive was disagreement with the IPCC's conclusions.

I question whether Paul Reiter threatened legal action at all, but won't push it since I know Frenchmen are quick to rile.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

I presented a valid view point that fundamentally the temperature measurement data is incorrect because of its enormously high level of uncertainty.

It would be a valid argument if it were true and as mentholated said, "opinions all mean absolutely nothing". Give me something more than your point of view that this uncertainty is a problem and we'll have something to discuss.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

This is not the way to sell the theory of man made global warming, at least not to me if you want me to listen.

It's obvious to me that you will continue to question man made global warming for the next fifty years even after coastal cities start flooding. I'm just trying to limit the damage of the falsehoods you keep posting.

bkelly

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by bkelly

Give me something more than your point of view that this uncertainty is a problem and we'll have something to discuss.

The last thread died because no skeptics could provide me with even one single piece of non-political evidence to support their claims. I asked for weeks to see some of the literature that their opinions were based on, but eventually I had to review every link that was posted as support for their arguments myself. Of course, no skeptic was getting their information from science journals or mainstream media outlets, and their information was fife with clear bias and political and economic special interests funding.

[Kerostasis]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

The last thread died because no skeptics could provide me with even one single piece of non-political evidence to support their claims.

Thats because all evidence related to global warming becomes political as soon as it is announced, whether it supports or discredits the consensus. Dismissing all opposing evidence as "political" is meaningless, because the supporting evidence is every bit as political.