• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global Warming not a fluke!

Slimething said:
I can't put it any better than that, Ziggurat. I work with Monte-Carlo models and sometimes they spit out the wildest approximations. One of them is a risk program that occassionally says that a scenario with reduced toxicant is riskier than the alternative. These models are thumbnails, at best, so we accept their results with many grains of salt.
Click to expand...

You may want to comment on the commentary provided by "Tamino".

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/taint-likely/

As I said, the whole point of the exercise is to ascertain whether or not the measured warming is just due to random chance.
 
varwoche said:
A crevice-derived opinion piece from Pravda? Brilliant. (note to self: add to list)

The barrel apparently has no bottom so long as it supports your ideological agenda.
Click to expand...
Not only is it amusing to see (typically right-wing) AGW denialists citing Pravda, but the author of this piece has some form as a Truther.
Indict all of the US government officials and their allies who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks

A preponderance of evidence shows that the highest officials of the Bush Administration, in collusion with many other officials from the Pentagon, CIA, FBI, FEMA, NSA, NORAD, New York City officials, air-traffic contollers, airline executives, controlled demolitions experts, computer graphics technicians, media executives, and others together planned and committed the horrible attacks of 9/11/2001 against the Pentagon and the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. The 9/11 attacks were immediately blamed on some bogus 'Arab highjackers', a half dozen of whom were later confirmed to be still alive, and therefore innocent, after the 9/11 attacks.
Click to expand...
Obviously a reliable source!
 
It might have been a tip into another ice age 100k out but likely cancelled...why not try the real science instead of right wing fantasy sources....

Science News

Next Ice Age Delayed By Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels

ScienceDaily (Aug. 30, 2007) — Future ice ages may be delayed by up to half a million years by our burning of fossil fuels. That is the implication of recent work by Dr Toby Tyrrell of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton
Click to expand...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070829193436.htm

love the sources..from the same august Pravda publication..

http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries :roll:
Extraterrestrials greatly interested in human sperm and ovules
20.11.2008
/ Science / Mysteries
The term ‘extraterrestrial’ is not quite correct. There is no evidence to prove that aliens come from other planets. No one knows where they come from. It is not ruled out that they come from a civilization of parallel worlds, or from the ocean. Modern science knows very little about what’s happening at ocean’s depths. US satellites took several infrared photographs of Mexico, Chile and Bolivia in 1993. The pictures showed large objects up to 450 kilometers in diameter – the flying cities. This is where they all come from


Killer UFOs hide in lakes
13.11.2008

/ Science / Mysteries
Mysterious flying objects of all shapes – round, ellipsoid, rectangular and triangular – can often be spotted near Lake Gaipo in the Cordilleras. Locals see them flying into the water of the lake or hanging above the water surface and then disappearing in the sky. Unlike ufologists, the Quechua Indians living on the shores of Gaipo Lake do not associate such phenomena with extraterrestrial beings. They are certain that witches and wizards assume the similitude of UFOs as they hunt for humans
Click to expand...

Seems the Russkies want props for Milankovitch :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
You may want to comment on the commentary provided by "Tamino".

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/taint-likely/
Click to expand...
You'll probably get mad at me but I don't think there's enough database on which to make that judgement but I'll read the paper in detail later. Monte-Carlo modeling is used to assess the consequences when a likely event occurs radomly. I don't know what the approach used here is. My comment was that these models are complex enough to give you varying results even with the same seed and number of replicates. The results do show a central tendency but they're never the same.

As I said, the whole point of the exercise is to ascertain whether or not the measured warming is just due to random chance.
Click to expand...

I'm not a statistician but I don't think you need probabilistic modeling to determine that. As a matter of fact, I have no idea how you would determine that statistically. I really don't see that the application fits the task here.
 
arthwollipot said:
Interesting. Thanks for that. FWIW, a considerable percentage of Queensland is currently underwater.
Click to expand...

And Victoria wishes it was. There is no end is site for the drought down here. A La Nina that is causing floodind up the NE has barely brought us average rain down here. The dams have still got bugger all water in them.
 
a_unique_person said:
And Victoria wishes it was. There is no end is site for the drought down here. A La Nina that is causing floodind up the NE has barely brought us average rain down here. The dams have still got bugger all water in them.
Click to expand...
Our front dam is once more completely dry. The two house dams are about a third full.
 
I didn't want to bother with a new thread. So I elect this one to post my comment about the GW news coverage on Yahoo. I'd post my comments on Yahoo but they published my e-mail address the last time so never again for me in that news forum.

The news headline:
The earth's magnetic field impacts climate: Danish study First paragraph:
The earth's climate has been significantly affected by the planet's magnetic field, according to a Danish study published Monday that could challenge the notion that human emissions are responsible for global warming.
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)

Last paragraph:
The two scientists acknowledged that CO2 plays an important role in the changing climate, "but the climate is an incredibly complex system, and it is unlikely we have a full overview over which factors play a part and how important each is in a given circumstance," Riisager told Videnskab.
Click to expand...


So, no claim whatsoever by the researchers this research changes the impact of humans on the current global warming conditions, but the reporter adds that lie into the story to feign controversy. We can't just read the science, nooo, not interesting enough for this twit. Instead the science has to fit in with the supposed scientific controversy which is really no more than a political attempt to claim a scientific controversy.


This news story contrasts with the OP news story which really does address the issue of GW being real or not.
 
skeptigirl said:
IThe news headline:
The earth's magnetic field impacts climate: Danish study First paragraph

"The earth's climate has been significantly affected by the planet's magnetic field, according to a Danish study published Monday that could challenge the notion that human emissions are responsible for global warming."
Click to expand...

:(emphasis mine)
Click to expand...

Note the weaseling "could challenge". Naturally, the usual suspects pick that up and run with it as "is challenging".

So, no claim whatsoever by the researchers this research changes the impact of humans on the current global warming conditions, but the reporter adds that lie into the story to feign controversy. We can't just read the science, nooo, not interesting enough for this twit. Instead the science has to fit in with the supposed scientific controversy which is really no more than a political attempt to claim a scientific controversy.
Click to expand...

I have been in the belly of the beast (journalism, that is, not Yahoo specifically) and it's just as bad as you think, if not worse. With some honourable exceptions of course.
 
skeptigirl said:
I didn't want to bother with a new thread. So I elect this one to post my comment about the GW news coverage on Yahoo. I'd post my comments on Yahoo but they published my e-mail address the last time so never again for me in that news forum.

The news headline:
The earth's magnetic field impacts climate: Danish study

,,,,So, no claim whatsoever by the researchers this research changes the impact of humans on the current global warming conditions....
Click to expand...

You've reversed the actual sequence of the historical arguments, so let me explain.

1. Warmer alarmists (including some few scientists) go through a convoluted set of circuituous logic, knocking down one strawman after another, then proclaim...

"There is nothing BUT CO2 that could have caused 20th century warming!"

2. Not just skeptics, but scientists in various fields of study respond...

"Wrong. Other things that could have caused from 0-100% of 20th century warming."

Note the absolutist, black-and-white belief pattern of the Warmer, and the statement of a percentage range of effect by the skeptics, and the real scientists.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
You've reversed the actual sequence of the historical arguments, so let me explain.

1. Warmer alarmists (including some few scientists) go through a convoluted set of circuituous logic, knocking down one strawman after another, then proclaim...

"There is nothing BUT CO2 that could have caused 20th century warming!"

2. Not just skeptics, but scientists in various fields of study respond...

"Wrong. Other things that could have caused from 0-100% of 20th century warming."

Note the absolutist, black-and-white belief pattern of the Warmer, and the statement of a percentage range of effect by the skeptics, and the real scientists.
Click to expand...

The bit you very conveniently left off there is what happens when the 'real scientists' try to come up with a more useful figure than 0-100%. If you check the IPCC report, you'd find that 1.5 Wm-2 of warming gets attributed to anthropogenic forcings that aren't CO2, 1.66 to CO2 itself and 0.12 to natural forcing, all offset by 1.45 Wm-2 of negative anthropogenic forcings. So CO2 isn't the be all and end all by any means, but it doesn't change the fact that (even when you take the uncertainties into account) it is by far the single biggest factor.
 
Spud1k said:
The bit you very conveniently left off there is what happens when the 'real scientists' try to come up with a more useful figure than 0-100%. If you check the IPCC report, you'd find that 1.5 Wm-2 of warming gets attributed to anthropogenic forcings that aren't CO2, 1.66 to CO2 itself and 0.12 to natural forcing, all offset by 1.45 Wm-2 of negative anthropogenic forcings. So CO2 isn't the be all and end all by any means, but it doesn't change the fact that (even when you take the uncertainties into account) it is by far the single biggest factor.
Click to expand...

If you'd check outside the door, you'd find that:

  • 1.5 Wm-2 of warming anthropogenic forcings that aren't CO2,
  • 1.66 CO2
  • 0.12 natural forcing
  • 1.45 Wm-2 of negative anthropogenic forcings
was ridiculous.
 
Yes there certainly is the ridiculous - more on the other side of the door...:rolleyes:

••

Seems the LIA is more and more seen as NAO derived.

Little Ice Age
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
February, from the Très Riches Heures du duc de Berry, ca.1410

The reconstructed depth of the Little Ice Age varies between different studies (anomalies shown are from the 1950-80 reference period).

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling occurring after a warmer era known as the Medieval Warm Period or Medieval Climate Optimum.[1] The term was introduced into scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] Climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions.

Some confine the Little Ice Age to approximately the 16th century to the mid 19th century.[3] It is generally agreed that there were three minima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1850, each separated by slight warming intervals.[4]

It was initially believed that the LIA was a global phenomenon; it is now less clear if this is true. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), based on Bradley and Jones, 1993; Hughes and Diaz, 1994; Crowley and Lowery, 2000 describes the LIA as "a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C," and says, "current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and Medieval Warm Period appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries."[5] .[2]
Click to expand...

now supported by ocean evidence

Swings In North Atlantic Oscillation Variability Linked To Climate Warming

ScienceDaily (Jan. 13, 2009) — Using a 218-year-long temperature record from a Bermuda brain coral, researchers at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) have created the first marine-based reconstruction showing the long-term behavior of one of the most important drivers of climate fluctuations in the North Atlantic.
Click to expand...

continues
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090113101200.htm

Since the LIA was well within anthro impact zone and evidence supports wider swings.....those swings could equally apply to MWP.

an increasingly unstable climate regime is a feature of the Anthropocene.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
If you'd check outside the door, you'd find that:

  • 1.5 Wm-2 of warming anthropogenic forcings that aren't CO2,
  • 1.66 CO2
  • 0.12 natural forcing
  • 1.45 Wm-2 of negative anthropogenic forcings
was ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Sez who? Got any better estimates?
 
mhaze said:
If you'd check outside the door, you'd find that:

  • 1.5 Wm-2 of warming anthropogenic forcings that aren't CO2,
  • 1.66 CO2
  • 0.12 natural forcing
  • 1.45 Wm-2 of negative anthropogenic forcings
was ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I'm just hoping that you don't mean what I think you mean. :(
 
mhaze said:
You've reversed the actual sequence of the historical arguments, so let me explain.
Click to expand...

scepticgirl did nothing of the sort. Which is to say, you have set up a strawman. And your patronising tone does you no favours.

1. Warmer alarmists (including some few scientists) go through a convoluted set of circuituous logic, knocking down one strawman after another, then proclaim...

"There is nothing BUT CO2 that could have caused 20th century warming!"
Click to expand...

Ah, such sweet unintentional irony. The conclusion, of course, is that 20thCE warming cannot be explained without including a CO2 forcing. Not this strawman that you erect.

2. Not just skeptics, but scientists in various fields of study respond...

"Wrong. Other things that could have caused from 0-100% of 20th century warming."

Note the absolutist, black-and-white belief pattern of the Warmer, and the statement of a percentage range of effect by the skeptics, and the real scientists.
Click to expand...

We have all noted your strawmen, which you erect even after Spud refers you to the IPCC.

If you check outside your door you'll find a burning paper bag. I suggest you stamp it out before it sets your pants on fire.
 
Spud1k said:
Sez who? Got any better estimates?
Click to expand...

The late and unlamented GMB brought in the passive "that's ridiculous" method recently; my suspicion that mhaze is a rather sophisticated Turing Test Candidate has been rewoken :cool:.

To my way of thinking, ridicule has a valid role as an active method. Can I help it if I love it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom