The surge

[Donald Munro]

Donald Munro wrote:
>> You're arguing with somebody who thing intelligent design is science. You
>> don't need no stinking testable hypotheses in the red state educational
>> systems.

William Asher wrote:
> I trolling for babes and frankly, it's not working as well as I thought it
> would. Do you think it would help if I posted my body composition? Would
> getting called WNL Bill hurt or help my chances?

There is a testable hypothesis that trolling the helmets and guns people
works best on rbr/rbt.

 

[Donald Munro]

William Asher wrote:
>>I don't do the research, I just report the conclusions.

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> S'OK. I wouldn't read it if you did it. Just wanted to know about the
> butterflies.

Must be a 60's flower child LSD kind of thing. Alas, a bit before my time.

 

[Fred Fredburger]

William Asher wrote:
> Donald Munro wrote:
>
>> William Asher wrote:
>>> But don't let facts get in the way of your ranting.
>> Dumbass,
>> You're arguing with someone who "believes" in intelligent design.
>>
>
> Like *you* never picked on the crippled kid in grade school.
>

The crippled kid in MY grade school was one stupid, nasty, annoying,
arrogant little S.O.B. And he smelled funny too. Everyone just wanted
him to go away.

 

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Feb 7, 5:49 pm, "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

> Dude, Lindzen's presentation was made on 6 May 2006 (as I noted way above)
> so when you got a data set with a 2006 average temp you should've known you
> were looking at the wrong data.

Sheesh -- with such sloppiness, one would think I didn't even care.

> and the file is http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ftpdata/tavenh2v.dat

Okay -- now I get what you get.

> If you plot those data, you'll see that's what Lindzen plotted *up to the
> last three data points*.

As you know, the math software to read in data is very mechanical.
One has to work to get it to muck up basic data read-in and
processing. I can't off-hand imagine why the last three out of a
column (while the rest, at a glance, look to be correct) would be
flattened for any "typical" coding mistakes.

So it is weird. If he really did doctor it, then that is really
stupid of him. I think he could still claim what he claimed without
any corruption of the raw data. That is, he could have put the raw
data through the appropriate filter and got an answer that generally
supported his claim, with perhaps a minor adjustment of language. (He
would only need to say it was filtered.) One could argue about the
particular filter choice, but that is something else. After all, the
time period of his claim is short. (I think the time interval of the
claim is insufficient anyway, so I ignore him on his basic point
regardless of raw data integrity.)

I sent him an email asking for an explanation. I'm a dreamer.

> BTW, if it was up to me, I would've plotted the global temps, not the NH
> temps.

> I had to dig up the NH temps to try to match Lindzen's graph.

I spent time digging too. If you'd just linked the data file in the
first place, I could have spent less time.

So this is all rather obscure, and pretty well buried as anything very
significant. How did you happen upon this particular detail? Here?:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/richard_lindzen_claims_global.php

And there you are posting.....

 

[Jack Hollis]

On 7 Feb 2007 17:52:10 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:

>Do you understand the significance of Figure SPM-2 in the executive
>summary? Can you explain to me how all these other very minor effects are
>going to dominate the warming forcing produced by anthropogenic CO2?
>Explain how solar irradiance for instance, which is an order of magnitude
>less than CO2 in terms of effect, could be causing the observed warming.
>What process not listed in the figure, if it is not CO2, is responsible?


I don't deny that CO2 has the effect of increasing the greenhouse
effect, or that human activity has increased atmospheric CO2.

However, we also know that the sun's activity has increased at the
same time.

Here's an article from the Telegraph.

"The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame

The Telegraph, UK
By Michael Leidig and Roya Nikkhah
Last Updated: 11:15pm BST 17/07/2004

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter
because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the
past 1,000 years, according to new research.

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing
radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate
changes.

Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for
Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research,
said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and
may now be affecting global temperatures.
advertisement

"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few
hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently -
in the last 100 to 150 years."

Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse
gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the
Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater
impact."


There have been many warming periods in the past during times when
there was no CO2 increases, so obviously the climate can warm up
without any increase in CO2.

Personally, it seems logical to assume that because CO2 is a
greenhouse gas that increased levels of CO2 will result in a
temperature rise. I have no problem with that. However, there is no
way to determine exactly how much of the current warming trend is due
to CO2. It could be responsible for most of it or it could be
responsible for a small amount. The point is that there is no way to
tell. As Dr. Solanki says it's impossible to say which had the
greater impact.

In addition, I will say that there could be other factors in addition
to CO2 and the Sun's activity at work. The earth could be getting
more cosmic radiation from outer space for all we know, or ocean
currents and continental drift could be the culprit, or any
combination of all of the above. The climate system is too complex to
be able to isolate any single factor and say with certainty exactly
what contribution it is making to climate change.

 

[[email protected]]

On Feb 8, 1:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
(I asked):
> > Are you *afraid* of living in a cold, dark house, living on dog food,
> > unable to afford going to the doctor and buying the medicine you need
> > in America the Pensionless?

(TK replied, as usual):
> Would you care to compare bank accounts?

You were the one playing the victim card.

What was it Jesus said about a rich man getting into heaven, Tom?

(Exchange):
> >> Obviously you don't understand what "elasticity" means in economic terms
> >> and
> >> how close to the elastic limits this country presently is.
>
> > With People as a Resource, and No Child Left Behind (not to mention a
> > perpetual state of "war") there are no limits. Once the liberals are
> > removed, overnight nuke plants will spring up in clouds, like
> > mushrooms, and energy will be so cheap they'll just give it away
> > (remember "energy so cheap they'll just give it away"?).

(Sidestepping retort):
> Have you considered talking to a psychiatrist about your inability to focus
> on the subject?

A sarcastic, and obvious, reference to the policies of those you so
foolishly love, Tom.
> And there you'll be pushing a walker around still pretending that you
> actually know what you're drooling about.

When you said that energy use is directly tied to economic prosperity,
you got a good long head start on me in the drooling dept. Not your
first, of course.

> That's why you're babbling on and on - you haven't actually read any of the
> stuff you're commenting on. You're only posting because you don't have
> anything better to do.

I'm cleaning house at home, too.

> So if life DOESN'T continue on earth that isn't the End Times philosophy?

You know what I was referring to and again, confronting you with, in a
sarcastic manner. Is Janet Partial (intentional misspelling) still on
the air?

Tell you what, post a link to where a climatologist says "all life
will end", especially in the time frame forecast by.

> You're quite a clever person for someone incapable of thought.

If you ever admitted a point, you'd be taking a great stride. I will,
however take the intended insult as a sign that at least a couple of
the darts hit target. --D-y

 

[Jack Hollis]

On 7 Feb 2007 17:52:10 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:

> You seem to have a really
>good handle on the science, so what did all the experts leave out?

My area of expertise is neuroscience, but I've done lots of research
and I know what can and cannot be done. There are dozens of factors
that effect the earth's climate and all of them are in constant flux.
In a system that is dynamic as that, it's impossible to isolate one
factor and determine exactly what it is contributing to the whole
system.

In research design you attempt to determine the effect that one
variable on another. In this case, the dependent variable is global
temperature and the independent variable is CO2. In order to
successfully do this, all other variables that could effect the
dependent variable have to be held constant and this is impossible in
the climate system.

The best you can do is show a correlation between CO2 and temperature.
However, correlation does not prove causality. Especially since we
also know that the sun (another independent variable) has also shown
an increase in intensity during the same period.

It is also known that previous warming trend have occurred without an
increase in CO2. In fact, the data shows that CO2 increases follow
global warming. So it's clear that warming trends can happen
independent of CO2.

All this results in the conclusion that no one know exactly how much
CO2 is contributing to global warming.

 

[Robert Chung]

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

> And there you are posting.....

You read all the way to the bottom of those comments? Yow. You're never
going to get those minutes back.

 

[William Asher]

Jack Hollis wrote:

> On 7 Feb 2007 17:52:10 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Do you understand the significance of Figure SPM-2 in the executive
>>summary? Can you explain to me how all these other very minor effects
>>are going to dominate the warming forcing produced by anthropogenic
>>CO2? Explain how solar irradiance for instance, which is an order of
>>magnitude less than CO2 in terms of effect, could be causing the
>>observed warming. What process not listed in the figure, if it is not
>>CO2, is responsible?
>
>
> I don't deny that CO2 has the effect of increasing the greenhouse
> effect, or that human activity has increased atmospheric CO2.
>
> However, we also know that the sun's activity has increased at the
> same time.
>
> Here's an article from the Telegraph.
>
> "The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame
>
> The Telegraph, UK
> By Michael Leidig and Roya Nikkhah
> Last Updated: 11:15pm BST 17/07/2004
>
> Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter
> because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the
> past 1,000 years, according to new research.
>
> A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing
> radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate
> changes.
>
> Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for
> Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research,
> said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and
> may now be affecting global temperatures.
> advertisement
>
> "The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few
> hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently -
> in the last 100 to 150 years."
>
> Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse
> gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the
> Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater
> impact."
>
>
> There have been many warming periods in the past during times when
> there was no CO2 increases, so obviously the climate can warm up
> without any increase in CO2.
>
> Personally, it seems logical to assume that because CO2 is a
> greenhouse gas that increased levels of CO2 will result in a
> temperature rise. I have no problem with that. However, there is no
> way to determine exactly how much of the current warming trend is due
> to CO2. It could be responsible for most of it or it could be
> responsible for a small amount. The point is that there is no way to
> tell. As Dr. Solanki says it's impossible to say which had the
> greater impact.
>
> In addition, I will say that there could be other factors in addition
> to CO2 and the Sun's activity at work. The earth could be getting
> more cosmic radiation from outer space for all we know, or ocean
> currents and continental drift could be the culprit, or any
> combination of all of the above. The climate system is too complex to
> be able to isolate any single factor and say with certainty exactly
> what contribution it is making to climate change.
>

The total greenhouse forcing of the sun is an order of magnitude less than
additional greenhous forcing of CO2. So you're saying the large increase
in temperature is being driven by something only as tenth as big as the
greenhouse gas forcing? The effect of cosmic rays on clouds is already
lumped into the IPCC uncertainty for indirect aerosol effects, and it is
minor compared to the already huge effect of anthropogenic sulfur. The
continents are drifting at most of centimeters per year, there have been no
measurable changes in major ocean currents over the last half century.

All of your hypothesized reasons why we shouldn't be concerned about global
warming, or more accurately, why we shouldn't regulate carbon in order to
address the issue do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. All of the more
reasonable greenhouse skeptics no longer argue the underlying science. It
is now either an economic issue or the makes the case that yes we are
responsible but the changes won't be severe and might even be beneficial.
My opinion is that the economic arguments have some traction because there
is no cheap way to reduce carbon emissions and the consequences of climate
change might not be so awful as to make industrial civilizations fail.

I notice you left off the second half of the Solanki quote, which you can
find on Wikipedia:

"Just how large this role [of solar variation] is, must still be
investigated, since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of
the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth’s
temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect
caused by carbon dioxide."

So it appears that even Solanki is fairly well down with the program.

Stick to economics, the science is no longer debatable. Whether you will
ever admit it or not, the IPCC has already thought of everything you can
imagine that is remotely credible and found data to support the theory that
increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are responsible for the
observed increase in global temperature and general warming of the global
climate system.

--
Bill Asher

 

[Tom Kunich]

"William Asher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> And yet you seem to believe that your resume is much better than Dr.
>> Ball's. Hmm why am I not surprised that instead of addressing his
>> scientific claims you and your cohorts attack the man? Could it be
>> simply because you don't have any idea what you're talking about?
>
> Ball lies on his resume, whereas mine at least is accurate.

Why do I doubt that? Oh, that's right - you don't actually post YOUR
qualifications do you?

> Ball doesn't make any scientific claims. Neither do you, for that matter.

Wait a minute - let me get this straight - it isn't up to those making
EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS to prove them, but for other's to disprove them? Thanks
for that very interesting insight into your education. I think we can safely
discount anything you have to say from this moment on.

> Flat out, two questions:
>
> 1. What part of the physics of climate do you think is wrong?

We don't have a climate record with anything LIKE enough data to suggest
that there IS any global warming let alone comment on the sources of that
warming. What's more, there isn't even a "concensus" on how you measure
global average temperature. I'd be willing to bet that you couldn't even
tell me how it is presently measured and how many different methods there
are, not to mention try to describe why one method should be somehow better
than another.

> 2. What major part of the system is missing?

What the hell are you talking about? If you can't even write in plain
English there's no point in carrying this on any longer.

 

[William Asher]

Jack Hollis wrote:

> On 7 Feb 2007 17:52:10 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> You seem to have a really
>>good handle on the science, so what did all the experts leave out?
>
> My area of expertise is neuroscience, but I've done lots of research
> and I know what can and cannot be done. There are dozens of factors
> that effect the earth's climate and all of them are in constant flux.
> In a system that is dynamic as that, it's impossible to isolate one
> factor and determine exactly what it is contributing to the whole
> system.
>
> In research design you attempt to determine the effect that one
> variable on another. In this case, the dependent variable is global
> temperature and the independent variable is CO2. In order to
> successfully do this, all other variables that could effect the
> dependent variable have to be held constant and this is impossible in
> the climate system.
>
> The best you can do is show a correlation between CO2 and temperature.
> However, correlation does not prove causality. Especially since we
> also know that the sun (another independent variable) has also shown
> an increase in intensity during the same period.
>
> It is also known that previous warming trend have occurred without an
> increase in CO2. In fact, the data shows that CO2 increases follow
> global warming. So it's clear that warming trends can happen
> independent of CO2.
>
> All this results in the conclusion that no one know exactly how much
> CO2 is contributing to global warming.
>

While is it strictly true that correlation does not imply causality, tight
correlation coupled with a model based on proven physics explaining that
a correlation should exist strongly suggests causality. You cannot ignore
the second half of that simply because it doesn't suit you. If we only
knew CO2 were increasing and temperature were increasing but didn't
understand anything else about radiative transfer, aerosol effects, or
solar forcing, you would be correct. But climate scientists are not
operating in that knowledge vacuum, they know not only what the
correlations are, but why these things are correlated. So at best your
claim is intellectual obfuscation, at worst it is self-delusion.

Nearly all of the climate dynamicists on the planet agree that CO2 is
responsible for the warming. You've provided nothing in the way of
credible scientific evidence to dispute them. They have intimate knowledge
of how climate works along with the same general sense of statistics and
scientific method which you have. If I am faced with choosing to believe a
group of experts who nearly all say something that makes sense in terms of
what are known and correct physics, or believing someone who admits to a
lay knowledge of the same subject and says they are wrong but cannot
explain how or why they are wrong, I gotta go with the experts.

The idea that humans are directly responsible for changing the climate
shouldn't be so hard to swallow. Nothing will be done about it, nothing
will stop it, and while denying it doesn't hurt anything since the
situation is essentially hopeless anyway, it is intellectually silly.

--
Bill Asher

 

[William Asher]

Tom Kunich wrote:

<snip>

The plate in your head has come loose. Again.

--
Bill Asher

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Donald Munro" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You're arguing with somebody who thing intelligent design is science. You
> don't need no stinking testable hypotheses in the red state educational
> systems.

Munro, you are indeed the same sort of moron I remember. Perhaps you'd like
to cite ONE TIME I ever claimed I believed in "intelligent design". It
really burns your ass that I'm willing to allow someone else to have
whatever belief they want doesn't it?

 

[Tom Kunich]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 8, 1:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> (I asked):
>> > Are you *afraid* of living in a cold, dark house, living on dog food,
>> > unable to afford going to the doctor and buying the medicine you need
>> > in America the Pensionless?
>
> (TK replied, as usual):
>> Would you care to compare bank accounts?
>
> You were the one playing the victim card.

Let's see, I'm asked what effect it will have on me and I state the facts.
You believe that to be playing the "victim card". To a plumber whose entire
life was spent trying to figure out how to show ass crack to every available
housewife I suppose you might really think that.

> What was it Jesus said about a rich man getting into heaven, Tom?

By all means explain that. Then explain how you aren't a thousand times
richer than the "rich men" of Jesus time.

> When you said that energy use is directly tied to economic prosperity,
> you got a good long head start on me in the drooling dept. Not your
> first, of course.

Oh??? http://www.energy.gov/print/1799.htm "The demand for oil is
increasing, not just in the United States and Great Britain but around the
world, particularly in rapidly growing economies in nations like China and
India." ~ "There, we will see a requirement for large . very large . power
production facilities as increased population joins with a growing world
economy to put more and more stress on energy supplies."

I don't think we need continue any conversation with you as well. You, Asher
and Munro are little people that have a knack for making bananas look
particularly intelligent.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"SLAVE of THE STATE" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 7, 5:49 pm, "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> As you know, the math software to read in data is very mechanical.
> One has to work to get it to muck up basic data read-in and
> processing. I can't off-hand imagine why the last three out of a
> column (while the rest, at a glance, look to be correct) would be
> flattened for any "typical" coding mistakes.

If you simply run a six point polynomial averaging on those you will see
that the temperature peaked in 2004 though that was a low temperature year
and has already started back down. Of course since we don't have sufficient
data none of that means a whole lot other than there appears to be a cyclic
variation. Gee, WHO would have guessed that the weather occurs in patterns
with short, medium, long and super long cycles!

 

[William Asher]

Tom Kunich wrote:

>
> If you simply run a six point polynomial averaging on those you will
> see that the temperature peaked in 2004 though that was a low
> temperature year and has already started back down. Of course since we
> don't have sufficient data none of that means a whole lot other than
> there appears to be a cyclic variation. Gee, WHO would have guessed
> that the weather occurs in patterns with short, medium, long and super
> long cycles!

Pssst Tom, check the Southern Oscillation Index for the past few years and
its correlation to global temperature. Note that the past few years we've
been under conditions that correlate with lower global temperatures (La
Nina). This year, we're entering El Nino conditions and temperatures will
be higher globally, if not this year then the next since there is a 6-9
month lag in the SOI and global temperature. You heard it here first.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soihtm1.shtml

--
Bill Asher

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Jack Hollis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 7 Feb 2007 17:52:10 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> You seem to have a really
>>good handle on the science, so what did all the experts leave out?
>
> My area of expertise is neuroscience, but I've done lots of research
> and I know what can and cannot be done. There are dozens of factors
> that effect the earth's climate and all of them are in constant flux.
> In a system that is dynamic as that, it's impossible to isolate one
> factor and determine exactly what it is contributing to the whole
> system.
>
> In research design you attempt to determine the effect that one
> variable on another. In this case, the dependent variable is global
> temperature and the independent variable is CO2. In order to
> successfully do this, all other variables that could effect the
> dependent variable have to be held constant and this is impossible in
> the climate system.
>
> The best you can do is show a correlation between CO2 and temperature.
> However, correlation does not prove causality. Especially since we
> also know that the sun (another independent variable) has also shown
> an increase in intensity during the same period.
>
> It is also known that previous warming trend have occurred without an
> increase in CO2. In fact, the data shows that CO2 increases follow
> global warming. So it's clear that warming trends can happen
> independent of CO2.
>
> All this results in the conclusion that no one know exactly how much
> CO2 is contributing to global warming.

Hear, hear! Very nice summation of real science Jack. But I hope you're not
pinning your sites on the mob agreeing with you.

 

[[email protected]]

On Feb 8, 5:03 pm, Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2007 17:52:10 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:

> There are dozens of factors
> that effect the earth's climate and all of them are in constant flux.
> In a system that is dynamic as that, it's impossible to isolate one
> factor and determine exactly what it is contributing to the whole
> system.

dumbass,

that is what people try to do with models. by reconstructing past
climates you can not only validate a model for testing future
scenarios, but you can also try to isolate the different factors by
testing different scenarios. granted models aren't perfect, but even
in medical trials you can't claim 100% confidence in your results.

as an aside the CO2 record correlates well with the temperature
record, at least over the last few glacial cycles, but there are
certain events (typically fast and "dynamical") which did result in
dramatic temperature shifts without a CO2 change.

an important part of the story is that the system is not linear.
during glacial times the insolation (amount of solar energy hitting
the surface of the earth) was about the same, but the pattern was
slightly different, and the state it was acting on was different, so
the climate was completely different.

even a seemingly subtle detail about how clouds form can be the
difference between a positive and negative feedback (the basis for
lindzen's adaptive iris theory).

i think the debate has become political, derailing the relevant
issues.

even those that don't believe that CO2 emissions are heating the
troposphere, like lindzen and spencer agree that the temperature is
increasing. with or without human intervention, the climate is
changing ad as bill says, it's unlikely there's going to be anything
significant humans can or will do about it.

there has to be more awareness about how exactly the climate is
changing and plans about how to deal with it. studying a 1-dimensional
dataset isn't going to prepare you for that. consider someting like
this :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Warming_Predictions_Map_2.jpg

a temp. increase at the poles, if it causes a glacier to melt is going
to have a disproportionate effect.

so it is conceivable that solar variability could have more dramatic
effect than a CO2 forcing, even if that that radiative forcing is
smaller. CO2 is well mixed, whereas the sun doesn't shine evenly over
the globe.

 

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Feb 8, 2:19 pm, "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> > And there you are posting.....
>
> You read all the way to the bottom of those comments? Yow. You're never
> going to get those minutes back.

I didn't read them. I was scanning for particulars, not even looking
for you. I'm a troller and a scroller.

If you were to ask me what the contents were, I wouldn't be able to
say, except for you and Eric Swanson.

 

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Feb 8, 3:11 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> If you simply run a six point polynomial averaging on those you will see
> that the temperature peaked in 2004 though that was a low temperature year
> and has already started back down.

The bars should be raw.