ArmchairGeneral

Interesting article. A little sensational and conspiracy theoryish, but it could be gospel truth for all I know. Definitely something to think about.

Wow. That's what you might call a "Duh" moment. That's so stupid sounding it makes me wonder how accurate it is. One would have to be incredibly idiotic/biased to ignore the possibility that the trees are responding to greater CO2 availability. That's grade school science. If true, wow...I mean, just, WOW.

Not to beat a dead horse, but that's hogwash. When your hypothesis fails to match the data, you check the data, your methods, and depending on how important the model is, any number of assumptions you've made. You look at all the possibilities, and if you feel that the model isn't workable, then you throw it out; unless, of course, that would require trashing all sorts of other theories that depend on your model. Then you just ignore the data, 'cause you're not about to try to challenge the entire scientific consensus. Unless you're Einstein or Galileo or something.

__________________
"Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable."
-Theodore Dalrymple

RadioM

Don't know about the global models, but I was involved with beta testing some local area climate models when I was studying climatology.
We were getting accurate results.

__________________
"Just go home rednecks!" Me, 28/03/2007

RadioM

That the Earth is the centre of the universe has been debunked.

The 'hockey stick' graph has not.

dalem

Yep. It has been thoroughly pissed on. One of these climate threads has a linkydink or two.

-dale

gunnut

Exactly. The skeptics realized that Mann used thicker tree rings as an indication for higher temperature when it clearly meant higher CO2 content. He fudged the data to produce the results he wanted.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

gunnut

Do your models work for all regions of the earth? Do your models work for any historical period? If not, then it's only a local model, not fit for predicting global weather pattern.

Mechanics is the universal truth in predicting how objects behave in this universe. But it only works in models with less than 30% of the speed of light. When the environment starts to exceed that threshold, mechinics need to be thrown out and replaced with relativity. Einstein was working on a universal equation until his death. He never completed his work. I'm not saying it can't be done. But what we have now is less than incomplete.

Same with predicting climate with human interaction. What we have now is less than incomplete. We shouldn't act with impulse and alarmism.

RadioM

As I said, it was a local model that I was working on. As a lowly undergrad/hons student I didn't have access to the big models ($$$) nor the computer power ($$$) to run them. I used various periods for the past ~150 years (length of instrumental data) and yes it did work. To have gone back further than this required branches of science outside of what I was studying, and wherein I believe the controversy over the 'hockey stick' graph is centred. The fact remains that accurate models are being made.

Whilst we shouldn't act with impulse and alarmism it would certainly be foolish to ignore what could be a major human problem. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with people taking a good look at their lives and realising the amount of waste that they are responsible for. Even if humans are not responsible for climate change, we are certainly responsible for inefficient use of resources.

As to the hockey stick graph, whilst I can find debunkers I can also find confirmation. Note that not all replicants use tree rings. Coral, stalagtites and boreholes have also been used, with the same trend of the hockey stick graph being replicated.

US National Academy. Review of methodology.
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/0606.../4411032a.html

Replication.
Ammann and Wahl. (just an abstract).
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml

Rutherford, S., Mann, M.E., Osborn, T.J., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Hughes, M.K., Jones, P.D., Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Reconstructions: Sensitivity to Methodology, Predictor Network, Target Season and Target Domain, Journal of Climate, in press, 2004.

This one has a nice comparison between Jones & Mann (2004), Moberg et al. (2005) and Osborn and Briffa (2006).
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...paleolast.html

I don't have access to anything published since 2006 since. Do you guys have anything since then?

gunnut

I agree. I've said it many times before that I'm for conservation. We don't need huge gas guzzlers driving to work by our lonesome selves. I just despise the alarmist Hollywood types and hypocrite Al Gore telling us that we should conserve while they splurge on their limos and private jets.

Educate people that driving smaller cars make more economical sense instead of telling people the earth will end in 2100 and the debate is over.

RadioM

As with anything that gets debated in the mass-media extremism takes over.
Be it 'the world is going to end in 2100' or 'any changes will cost millions of jobs and the Chinese will invade us.'

Re: Gore. Carbon offsets for domestic energy use is a joke. Perfectly reasonable for large industry that can't cut back emissions. Anyone that regularly travels in a private plane has no say in the matter. Had he done his world tour by sail boat I may have bothered going to see his movie.

Officer of Engineers

Sorry, thus far, you have yet to provide EVIDENCE that man is responsible for current global WARMING while contrary explanations have been provided in full from natural CO2 to the sun warming periods to WWII which had been by far the largest man made CO2 event in history and temperature still dropped.

Not buying into this scenario.

__________________
Chimo

RadioM

I wasn't aware I was supposed to be proving global warming.
I'll knock up a few relevant articles when I get some time this afternoon.

Though it won't change gunnuts stance and neither do the 'contrary explainations provided in full' change mine.

Regardless, I think we have reached a nice common ground at present.

RadioM

Hang on. I just realized I’ve already provided a fair portion of evidence.

There was the article about how anthropogenic CO2 and Sulfur emissions are significantly greater than volcanic emissions.

Plus the Met Office: Climate Change Myths link. Written in that annoying Myth vs Fact format which doesn’t really help anyone, but still provides a good summary of the case in support of human influenced climate change.

Then a post laying out how the supposedly debunked ‘hockey stick’ graph has been replicated and its methodology passing peer review.

Sure nothing conclusive, but Evolution hasn’t been conclusively proven either.
Certainly enough information has been presented to at least support the possibility of human emissions being responsible for climate change.

If you choose to support the view that human emissions are not contributing to climate change that is fine. However to suggest that no EVIDENCE has been provided is misleading.

Evidence has been provided for both sides of the argument (though more of an introductory nature for further research). It is then simply a question of personal interpretation.

RadioM

Sorry, in the large amount of information provided so far on this thread that one has slipped by. Can I get some pointers to which article mentioned this?

gunnut

Here's a good collection of articles by global warming skeptics.

Larry Elder.com

I haven't had the time to go through any of them, so don't yell at me if some of the articles (or any) seem extremist or laughable. I doubt any of them would be, because Larry Elder is a pretty fact-based guy and a lawyer. He can smell bullcrap if there is any.

dalem

In this case it is NOT the media that is the problem, it is the activists and their religion.

-dale