Global Warming...

Page 2 of 8  


The price of oil went up last week because of "X" so it cannot go up this week because of "Y"?

Because the data says so. Because scientific principles say so.

To the uneducated, maybe. But again, science has provided the answer. We know, for a fact, that humans are causing the bulk of the current warming. We know from data. We know from scientific principles (CO2 traps heat, humans put CO2 in the atmosphere, CO2 is up 30% from preindustrial levels).

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You see, nobody has been able to create a model which accurately predicts what has already happened. First, suggest a mathematical model of global temperatures. Second, feed it actual data from the past. Third, have it accurately predict where we are today. Nobody has been able to do that...
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Model_Request.htm
If you can't create a model that you can verify, then anything your models predict are bunk...voodoo, guessing. Nobody in the engineering world would accept that...models are tested against empirical evidence.
Here...try the short course...
http://www.junkscience.com/JSJ_Course/jsjudocourse/1.htm
Provide evidence to the contrary... (this ought to be really fun)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:32:17 -0500, 3D Peruna

Somebody's jerking your middle earlobe with this one.

The only one they accepted is a fudge-packed spreadsheet that has to throw away data. It's a nudge-nudge wink-wink solution - the 'winner' proves it's a loser and you get to reach your own invalid and incorrect conclusion.

And the constraints of using factors that are known and understood. Things still outside the envelope and repeated testing are the reason for the big "Work In Progress" sticker on it.

Yea, that's what GCM's do.

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/LargerImages/OverviewGraphics/1FINALtusbl.jpg
7 different models.
"For the 20th century, the models simulate a US temperature rise of about 0.7 to 1.9F, whereas estimates from observations range from 0.5 to 1.4F; estimates for the global rise are 0.9 to 1.4F for models and 0.7 to 1.4F for observations, suggesting reasonable agreement."
And that was state of the art ... for the year 2000.
The odd part is that finding this basic stuff takes about 5 minutes - you took longer than that to post a pile of loaf from a disinformation site.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Boy...this is fun...
...so many people so convinced...
Let me ask you...what do you, personally, do about it?
Then, let me ask you the next question... How do you get others to do the same?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
3D Peruna > wrote:

You invade a Middle Eastern oil producing country, destabilize the area and cause the price of oil to go through the roof very quickly. The result is a sudden demand for environmentally friendly forms of energy to run cars, produce electricity etc.
..
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
cloud dreamer wrote:

SO... GWB is really a mole for the GW crowd?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
3D Peruna > wrote:

Nah. That man doesn't have a clue.
That's the irony of the situation - they're getting their grimy hands on a great deal of money and oil, but in the end, it will only serve to accelerate the development of alternate energy sources (many being environmentally friendly).
..
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:06:22 -0500, 3D Peruna

If that's why you did it, you wasted time and effort.

This looks like your impression of a duck.
When people take the time and effort to respond to your post, trying to come back with a snide style reads like an insult.

All the basic practicals. Fans, one-room A/C, compact lights in summer, recycling. I've always owned gas-easy cars. Lately, I've pitched out energy-sucker appliances, and done things like switching to rechargeable or 'smart' devices.
The other big part of it is treating the issue seriously, and trying to read and learn more about it.

Looks like you may be the one out of step. Over the last few years I've witnessed blue box and better energy use behavior as a noticeable trend. It's a lot easier now to recognize the people that still reject GW - when the subject comes up, the first thing they do is raise their voices.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh, gee. And we were all so sure you were a sincere and inquisitive fellow, come for some honest discussion...

Well, the science is very convincing. Why don't you look at some of the material I have provided to you in nice, substantive responses to your questions, questions taken in good faith as sincere, and come back with some intelligent response?

Now this is an entirely different issue. If you are conceding that GW is real and anthropogenic and a danger, then it is worth talking about. If it is just more noise, then sorry, not interested.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

?????????????? can you explain this statement?

correct me if I am wrong, but that is a) a multiple of 3 in the estimation interval from the models. not a reliable model even if the observations were perfectly in the range. b) a miss of 50% in the prediction vs the actual. c) an estimation interval with a multiple of 3 from the OBSERVED data, implying that we cannot even accurately measure what HAS already happened.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

They're misinforming you.

Quite the opposite. You're looking at that range for the projections out at 2100.

Your request was for a modelling that fit well with 20th Century values, and now you're pointing at the projections.

From here it looks like you skipped the verbage and misread the graph.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"For the 20th century, the models simulate a US temperature rise of about 0.7 to 1.9F" .7*3=2.1 very close to 1.9

"Whereas estimates from observations range from 0.5 to 1.4F" midpoint of interval .95degrees. midpoint of model interval = 1.3 degrees, okay, so it was a 30% miss, not a 50, but NOT accurate under by any stretch of the imagination.

the link you posted had NO verbage, and it is just as likely you misread the graph.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

U.S. Model low .7. Observed low .7 Model high .1.9 Observed high 1.4.
Global Model low ..9. Observed low .7 Model high .1.4 Observed high 1.4.
Afaics, the one and only range diff is the U.S. model v obs of .5.

Junk Science claimed nothing came with +- 1.5dC. You reduced it to farenheight to stretch a 30% miss. ... and missed the point.

Same site. You actually took your point from the verbage.
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/overviewtools.htm

How so? 2100 still looks like 2100.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just a tangential point here, disregarding the real numbers, isn't it a bit arbitrary to say "miss of 50%" or maybe off by a factor of two?
Consider a projected rise of 2oC and then a measured rise of 1oC. Was the projection off by a factor of 2x? Not if you consider that the projected avg temp was 16oC and the measured was 15oC, in this case you are only off by a factor of 1.07, or 7% wrong, not 100% wrong. Using 289.15 and 288.16 deg. K we are off by only .3 %
So what is a reasonable characterization? What is a reasonable accuracy?
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
3D Peruna wrote:

The oft-quoted Michael Crichton himself inadvertently brings up the counter to this argument.
"Dr. [James] Hansen overestimated [global warming] by 300 percent" says Crichton.
In fact, from Hansen's figure 1 <
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/00fig1.gif generated in 1988
<http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/> it is clear that theobserved temperatures from 1988-1998 are pretty damn close to the predicted temps from scenario B, which Hansen saw as most likely and used everywhere in his calculations, and certainly fall between his predictions of extreme best (scenario A) and worst (scenario C) cases. In fact, the only significant deviation, i.e. the big drop 1991-1992 rather than 1995-1996 in the model, is the result not of the model's inability to correctly predict temperature, but rather a result of volcanic eruptions being a random event. The model tossed a volcanic eruption in at 1995, from the analysis of their historical frequency; in reality, Pinatubo erupted in 1991. The downwards jog is of the appropriate size and duration, so that after 1995, the predictions and actual are back in register again. Do you want to fault the model by only being able to predict the statistical distribution of volcanic eruptions, rather than predicting each eruption's timing correctly?
Of course, not only is this an example of a ten year prediction being obviously statistically significantly correct, (by a model that is now 17 years old, no less) but, in an embarassment to the no-anthropogenic-global-warming trooops, this is an example of a case
of outright lying by 'skeptic' Pat Michaels testifying (under oath, I presume), which the other 'skeptics' are still citing, either through ignorance or downright deception; as with Crichton's repeating the falsehood, see above.
Why it's embarrasing that Crichton cited it as a failure is if he did two minutes of research he would have found how Pat Michaels congressional testimony that he cites is, to put it bluntly, a lie: "The extreme scenarios (A with fast growth and no volcanos, and C with terminated growth of greenhouse gases) were meant to bracket plausible rates of change. All of the maps of simulated climate change that I showed in my 1988 testimony were for the intermediate scenario B, because it seemed the most likely of the three scenarios. But when Pat Michaels testified to congress in 1998 and showed our 1988
predictions (Fig. 1) he erased the curves for scenarios B and C, and showed the result only for scenario A. He then argued that, since the real world temperature had not increased as fast as this model calculation, the climate model was faulty and there was no basis for concern about climate change, specifically concluding that the Kyoto Protocol was "a useless appendage to an irrelevant treaty". <http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/>
This is such a clearcut and well documented case, BTW, that (unless Crichton is deliberately being misleading, which I will assume is not the case), then his quoting it leads one to believe his bias extends to
his skepticism and diligence in investigating his references.
But anyway, isn't this a fine example of a successful prediction validating a model?
In fact, this a pretty simple model at base. 1) We KNOW rising CO2 concentration will raise the temperature, in the absence of any other factors. 2) We KNOW CO2 concentration is at a peak that hasn't been seen since green algae first appeared. 3) We KNOW that this is due to humanity burning millions of years of stored carbon in fossil fuels within a couple of decades. So, frankly, the onus is on any what-me-warming advocate to provide a model for the warming without CO2 dependence. The model with CO2 dependence is what one would expect, and it takes more than "it might not be like that" as a criticism to negate that little three part syllogism up there.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
?

We KNOW this?
http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/R-271.pdf
2) We KNOW CO2 concentration is at a peak that hasn't been

And we have accurate records of this? I KNOW we don't have accurate records, only efforts to, ah, "read the tea leaves"...but in this case the leaves have rotted millions of years ago...
3) We KNOW that this is due to

Do we know? And Nature doesn't do her part with a Volcano here or there?
No we don't KNOW...we think we know...
http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/R-271.pdf (just in case you missed it). There are lots of these types of "um...well..we really don't know" papers out there. How come none of them count?
There is NO consensus with regards to GW--particularly its causes. There is hype and hysteria... There is religious ferver, as demonstrated in almost all of these responses. You can point me to studies that "prove" your point, but I can find an equally large number of studies that "dis-prove" the point by equally reputable sources.
There is little we KNOW.
If you KNOW it's true...then what do YOU do about it? And, how are you going to get me to do the same?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

From the abstract of that paper "In multiple model comparisons we find that accelerated upper-level warming is simulated in all models for the greenhouse-gas/direct-aerosol forcing representative of
1979-2000. However, in a test of model predictive skill, a comparison with observations shows no
warming of the free troposphere over this period."
So sorry, 3D, S&C have revised their MSU temperature readings, which was the last record to show no warming (actually, it did show a small warming before anyway). So in the instance the models have not been contradicted and this paper is now out of date.
Back to the FUD factory for you...

I don't know when green algea first appeared, but there is very reliable evidence that CO2 is higher now than at any time in the last million years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
This record has been extended for another 500Kyrs and shows a similar behaviour.

Yes, we know. Volcanic outgassing is a well measured thing and it comes *no where near* the levels of anthropogenic emissions. http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

They do count. They are just far out numbered and often well debunked. Nor do the majority of them say what you think they say. Many of them (like this) are no longer up to date and no longer valid.

You are getting overwhelmingly calm, reasoned responses full of information and references. Your attempts to fan flames and start fights and your wolf-cries of "religious zealots!" are shallow and transparent.

No you can't.

Now this is a separate issue. Does this mean you concede your other points, or is it just a pre-emptive "who cares anyway"?
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Apparently not... At least none you'd believe anyway...
(see, I told you this was a religious argument)

No... GW proponents all advocate some significant changes in the way we live, how we live and who tells us what we can and cannot do.
Almost all of them also advocate that some govermental body "enforce" those changes in some way. In other words, they're advocating the idea of future security being traded for present liberty.
I'm not willing to trade my liberty (ala Kyoto, or any other "protocol") for some pretended security in the future.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 22:14:54 -0500, 3D Peruna

Transl. You're not willing to be accountable and take responsibility for the pollution you generate. When you're finished with it, anything left as garbage is outa-sight-outa-mind.
Party's over. You can stop using the phony liberty-threatening world conspiracy angle. Frankly, it's an Outer Limits episode.
btw- follow-up on the R-271 tropospheric article. The rebuttal:-
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050811_global_warming.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

'because'.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.