Slashdot Mirror

http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarm...

No one is seriously doing that.

Except when they do.

Like when a Lack of snowfall becomes a sign of global warming. Until it gets cold, then cold winter is a sign of global warming. And those are scientists quoted in both those articles, it's not just some 'unscientific journalists.'

Every time some 'weird weather' happens, it's a sign of global warming. If you don't realize this, it's because you aren't paying attention. Hurricane Sandy, Japan Tsunami, whatever it is, you see articles popping up about global warming.

The proof is in the absolute fuck-ton of easy to validate wide scale observational data, core sound principles(like absorption spectra of greenhouse gasses), and the staggering accuracy of mainline predictive theories.

The core principles are sound. We know that CO2 can have an effect on the atmosphere. We know that we are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.

The mainline predictive theories are not staggeringly accurate (as the snow problem in England, mentioned above, shows). As graphs like this and this and this show, it's seeming more and more like the climate change models are overly pessimistic (which of course is a value judgement; if you like warm weather, then you might say they are overly optimistic).

There is also plenty of unscientific behavior among scientists, as the Chris Landsat hurricane situation shows, and the CRU emails show.

Oh my, you are just a gold mine (or shit mine) of ignorance and denialist talking points...(more BS)...

When you get to the "talking points" BS, basically means you lost this conversation. If you have a point, make it. "talking points" as you put it are there because they distill the whole point into something even an idiot can consume and understand. Sadly, a lot of idiots still don't get it. Moving on...

The 1930s were warm in the US, not globally. You can't even tell the difference between local and global??

I never said it was globally. Good that you found the point I was making. I don't think you understand it though.

Of course, your ignorance and dishonesty compels you to repeat the old "CO2 lags temperature" canard. Once again your ignorance is only too obvious.

You did look at what you sent me, right? You do realize that it shows that GW in the past was because of orbits and then we got the heat + co2, right? You do realize that we are in one of those warming orbits, right? Ever hear of the little ice age? Probably TMI for you. Nice of you to help prove my point.

Where science isn't is if you add CO2 will you get more temperature. In the past all we can say is that CO2 seems to follow temperature. No kidding, less ice, more biological activity. The reverse, adding CO2 (effect) to the atmosphere doesn't necessarily mean you'll get heat (cause). That's the crap science. If you understood anything about science you would know that. We know methane is being released for example and you can show that traps heat. No doubt about that.

Finally, about the models. Very accurate eh? I guess you missed this article too - http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/07/28/2249238/new-nasa-data-casts-doubt-on-global-warming-models ? There was a really nice graph showing the UN predictions and reality somewhere. Unfortunately I can't seem to find it. They were not even close.

I bet you are STILL not convinced. It's time to get you mad as you realize you've been duped, played for a sucker - http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_History.htm . Read it if you dare. I bet you won't. Too long, too much information, etc.. Then your character flaws will come out again. Check this out - http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

Don't feel bad. A lot of people are fooled by them. The question is, are you still fooled. Member of Al Gore's/Mr. Strong's church of Man Made Global Warming? Life member maybe? Offended by that statement? Re-read the GW_History article again.

HTH and Best wishes.

Have you read Hansen's 1988 paper? If you're asserting an error range of 20C, I'm guessing the answer is NO.

Pray tell, what is the error range you'd like to claim for Hansen's 1998 paper? How cold would 2012 need to be before you accepted his basic conceit as falsified?

http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/Hansen_GlobalTemp.htm

Since he and John Christy were forced to correct their data, they've had to do so 6 more times, giving an overall significant positive increase in their readings.

Forced to correct their data? Forced? John Christy is a real scientist, he doesn't go back and change historical data points willy nilly to make some claim of "hottest year ever", he takes a close, skeptical look at even his own work, and corrects it as necessary: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/1853/

The fact that John Christy actually fixes errors, rather than blindly defending errors (like Mann, et. al.), is a sign of *strength* :)

The model made 3 predictions that were verified - 1) about 0.5C cooling globally 2) lasting about 2 years 3) affecting primarily southern Europe and America.

First off, I'd wonder more about if they made any predictions, which if wrong, would have falsified their primary conceit - i.e., if they would have said "0.4C cooling globally means we're *wrong*", that would have been stronger. Simply making predictions is trivial - astrologists do that all the time.

That being said:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/29/prediction-is-hard-especially-of-the-future/

So their model predicted a large event, a “three-sigma” cooling from Pinatubo.

"But despite their prediction, it didn’t turn out like that at all. Look at the red line above showing the actual temperature change. If you didn’t know there was a volcano in 1991, that part of the temperature record wouldn’t even catch your eye. Pinatubo did not cause anywhere near the maximum temperature swing predicted by the GISS model. It was not a three-sigma event, just another day in the planetary life."

"Hansen predicted what is called a “three sigma” event. He got about a two sigma event (2.07 sigma). “Sigma” is a measure of how common it is for something to occur. However, it is far from linear."

Be careful playing the "unfalsifiable" trump - since that would mean that the anti-AGW hypotheses are ALSO unfalsifiable.

There is no anti-AGW hypothesis - the null hypothesis is natural climate change. We know that natural climate change happens from observation - it's happened well before humanity existed, much less had a significant CO2 output.

Until you can come up with a clearly stated, necessary and sufficient set of falsifiable hypothesis statements in support of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, you're playing astrology, not science.

A greater concern is the level of chaotic complexity built into global climate as very, very small changes have the potential to cause dramatic shifts ( a real-world butterfly effect, if you will)

The butterfly effect isn't what you think it is - the idea that very small changes can cause very different *specific* outcomes (i.e., a storm that happened at 12:01am, versus a storm that happened at 2:43pm), is not the same thing as the idea that very small changes can cause huge changes in the *quality* of any given outcomes (i.e., a hurricane that is category 5, versus a tropical storm with top winds of 15mph). We do not live in a world where butterflies can create cat5 hurricanes - we live in a chaotic world that has a bunch of negative feedbacks that keeps things surprisingly stable at almost every timescale.

"If you have some useful information about that data then please share."

The average temp in Greenland has risen ~3degC in the last century.

You have the raw data and it's not hard to work out how to perform a least squares fit using a spreadsheet. Therefore you have everything you need to confirm/debunk my claim.

If you would rather read about science than perform it then you could start by looking here and here, or if pretty graphs are your thing then try a this random article that took me two minutes to find via a google search

After poking around a bit, it was a little frustrating to find raw data but it does seem to be there. I chose Land surface 1 hour to < 1 day, platform observations, and found the ds463 set or the ds510 for the US. Seems to be about what some people would be looking for for raw data. I'll skip downloading the 380GB data for now.

So far i think my favorite site for looking at what adjustments have been done is here. It's not really raw data per se since annual and monthly averages are by definition derived rather than raw, but not in any way that really bothers me. :p It does allow you to see what they've done to various stations. Most of the stations are largely unadjusted. Out of the stations where i saw noticeable changes (I don't count changes where the whole set is shifted a fixed amount or where there is no adjusted data for comparison) about 2/3 had more of a warming trend in the adjusted data than in the unadjusted. That's by eyeball comparison, and relying on memory, so YMMV. I'd say about half don't even have an adjusted set or have a fixed shift for whatever reason.

You could list me as a skeptic without the scare quotes i think. I find the station adjustments which themselves follow an increasing trend suspicious (darwin for instance), but not proof. If I had the time and inclination, I'd examine all stations, average all adjustments, and see if there was a net pattern to the adjustments.

And how is this any different than the exact same picture being published by the news media year after year showing the ice shelf collapsing?

I think there's transgressions on both sides of the aisle.

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/AntarcticWilkinsIceShelf.htm