Thread: Climate Change is real!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by tanq_tonic

I am sorry that some of your "pet" theories about why AGW might not be happening are not borne out by "the numbers" and the underlying hard science behind those numbers.

So, do you disagree with those "numbers" and observations as they pertain to the counter theories on C02 that they were presented in response to? If you do, I would be all ears as to why the "damn numbers" *don't relate to th specific theories presented.

Now, you present some counter-arguments, actually "counter-stories" since you fail to cite any basis for them aside from that "Dale and Gun told us."

Let's turn to them.



Well first of all (as indicated above) you present no specific citations to the studies that show this. Please provide them. I, for one, "think" (as opposed to what your snarky aside says.) Accordingly I require evidence to support that. (much like Dale, interestingly enough.) So now, much like Dale, I suggest that you "prove" your statement. I mean, what is good for the goose *is* good for the gander, right?

In fact, I'll start and spot you one:



source: NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data

(starting to get the drift?)

However, the cite also goes on to say:


This gets to my second point. There may very well have been "warmer periods" in the Earth's history. Now, please point out the driving mechanisms behind *all* of your (as yet unnamed) warming periods. Next, please point out *why* the mere existence of any unsourced warming trend in any way, shape, or form counts as evidence against AGW theories. Please try to remember "causation". The mere fact that "a warming trend occurred" many years ago is absolutely worthless in characterizing anything that might be happening today. In fact, that is probably far worse than the "cheesy correlations" that Dale deemed were unworthy.

Remember, per Dale's instructions above, "cheesy correlations" are *not* good. To wit, without any basis to tie the mechanisms of any cited warming trend, the existence of *any* previous warming trend provides not one iota of proof for or against the theory of AGW.



Again, instead of trying to "prove" by "a story I heard", provide references. Again, "prove it". (Funny how I hear that over and over again from one side, yet that same side inthe argument tries to do without....)

Well then, let me toos you one specific (among many) that are just opposite:
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media...pa20071880.pdf



I will be happy to provide you with others. So, at the very least, I would back away from asserting that "solar is the sole cause of excess warming" as "fact".



And, again (like #1) this supposition is fact only in the sense that it might show that a portion of coastal regions in Greenland in that time period were free of ice. Again, aside from the explicit evidence of that fact, this tasty little morsel (again) has no value in assessing the physics of CO2, nor of the many other issues that might have happened.

You in relating a tale that tells us nothing more than a specific thawing of a specific region of the world. Good for you.... Its scientific value as to the theory of potential CO2 warming effects is nil.

Let me put your "historical" narratives in perspective. I am driving down the road in my Ford Explorer and it stalls. Let us assume that the battery cable has gotten loose. However, the parties (right now) don't know the reason, but I suspect (but don't know) its the cable.

The guy behind me stops and says "Gee willikers, my Ford Explorer stalled on me 22 years ago. I don't know why it stalled out on me. And without even relating or knowing the symptoms of my stall 22 years ago, I can tell you that the reason my car stalled 22 years ago and why yours is now stalled is the same reason."

Do you understand *now* why your "proof by story" really doesnt rise above the level of a nice anecdote?



See #1, and #3 above. Hmmmm...... I know of outcroppings that have radiocarbon dates that are older than those that are below them. Does this automatically mean that they were deposited on top of the newer ones (but somehow older).

I am glad that there are reefs that are many meters higher. Too bad you don't see the many thousands of reasons that this occur. Interestingly you fixate on this as proof that AGW doesn't happen. How, I don't know, but you seemingly do.....



And if you had some, it would be blindingly obvious that while these items *might* be facts (remember that citation and proof thingy.... right?), that they are no way "proof" of anything related to carbon cycles.



Correct. They are puffheaded and rash conclusions on your part.



If you knew the first thing about me (which you do not, btw), you would realize that I am a true capitalist at heart. Stunningly so. But why let that fact get in the way of your sweeping generalizations...



no, just basic physics, and basic scientifically reported studies and facts. Sorry that you cannot recognize them.

I have my own ideas based not in politicism camoflaged by big numbers and bigheaded talk. Just because I don't buy your arguement doesn't mean I haven't use critical thinking to arrive at my train of thought. I don't agree with you so you deem me inferior. From what I have read of Gun's and Dale's post It seems to me to be more plausible and less abstract as your opinion. Does it insult you that I would believe ideas other than yours? Dale and Gun's information is no less scientific than your own and just has more of a ring of truth in it than yours to me. I've not been brainwashed or force to believe them or the Scientist that believe the opposing view to yours. I think and have a brain of my own thank you.



Ivan

Originally Posted by tanq_tonic

Actually I have trotted out *no* studies vis a vis climate; only those dealing with sun effects so far, so as to play whack-a-mole with those who can only grumble "the sun is the cause".....

And I will agree with you on at least one subject: Mann has dug himself a deep hole with respect to his methodolgy. McKittrick and MacIntyre did the entire climatolgy world a good service by forcing good statistics into the process.

There is *still* debate on how deep the problems are with MBH and with other Mann work, with the sides being drawn as Mann claiming there is no problems with the errors; the skeptics saying that his work is entirely trashed.

Interestingly enough, one of the scholars on the Wegman panel that reviewed Mann's work is one of my old teachers and I still keep in touch with him. On a gut level after talking with him, I would say that the problems with MBH98 are somehwere between the two extremes. Subsequent Mann work has been somewhat more robust, imo.

But Mann has gone into "skeptic paranoia", and not released much of his source code for peer review. That has hurt him probably more than any of the errors....

(ahhhh..... but I am "religious" nut who has obviously run across your generalized bullseye, since it is now Tanq et al as the apaprent bogey man..... lol.)

Tang, your happy to toss the sarcasm around and let me assure you, this forum isn't a knitting circle, so if we call you a religious nut rest assured it's in the best possible taste.
You are quite right of course, my mistake, you didn't raise the IPCC report, so we're back to the original problem. Rather than as you so eloquently put it, playing whack-a-mole getting skeptics to raise things for you to shoot down, how about, after four pages, actually offering some evidence for your theory of anthropogenic global warming?

Hmmm?

Originally Posted by Garm

I'm not really trying to weigh into this debate but i have read this thread and found it very frustrating that the temperature of another planet is used as evidence. Not only used as evidence but used to defenestrate (quite rudely) other peoples ideas. How was it measured? How is that solid evidence when there is so much controversy over our own planets temperature change? There is evidence suggesting parts here are and parts aren't, it all depends where you look. Unless there are many points mapped on Mars that have all been part of a longitudinal study then i find it hard to credit this as little more authoritative than a "correlation".
Before this post gets ripped into i would like to point out that I am personally quite sceptical of human induced climate change (not sure that we aren't the major cause but sceptical).

Here's Fenton's view of the data, which she claims (1.17 degree farenheit warming as measured by satellite observation 1975 - 1995) is caused by dust storm activity. She makes no explanation of why that increased activity should have happened.
Abdussamatov claims it is from increased solar activity, something not well liked by the priesthood. Note the strictly factual reporting of Fentons work vs the use of words such as "controversial" for Abdussamatov's, from the same news source.

As far as I'm aware and I'm happy to be corrected, the premise that Mars has heated up rapidly isn't in dispute.

Originally Posted by Garm

I'm not really trying to weigh into this debate but i have read this thread and found it very frustrating that the temperature of another planet is used as evidence. Not only used as evidence but used to defenestrate (quite rudely) other peoples ideas. How was it measured? How is that solid evidence when there is so much controversy over our own planets temperature change? There is evidence suggesting parts here are and parts aren't, it all depends where you look. Unless there are many points mapped on Mars that have all been part of a longitudinal study then i find it hard to credit this as little more authoritative than a "correlation".
Before this post gets ripped into i would like to point out that I am personally quite sceptical of human induced climate change (not sure that we aren't the major cause but sceptical).

Not to mention, we share the same sun as Mars. The change on Mars was a few minutes later though. But at roughly the same percent of change as earth as well.





Ivan

Originally Posted by Garm

I'm not really trying to weigh into this debate but i have read this thread and found it very frustrating that the temperature of another planet is used as evidence. Not only used as evidence but used to defenestrate (quite rudely) other peoples ideas. How was it measured? How is that solid evidence when there is so much controversy over our own planets temperature change? There is evidence suggesting parts here are and parts aren't, it all depends where you look. Unless there are many points mapped on Mars that have all been part of a longitudinal study then i find it hard to credit this as little more authoritative than a "correlation".
Before this post gets ripped into i would like to point out that I am personally quite sceptical of human induced climate change (not sure that we aren't the major cause but sceptical).

Actually we can measure mars's temperature quite well.

When we observe mars, we look at it as a planet.

When we observe earth, we look outside our windows.