Global warming

[a_unique_person]

Are you saying Hansen didn't mention his models in his statement to the Senate?

BTW, you didn't answer the question. Are you willing to join Schneibster and imply MHaze fabricates what he posts?

It's not warming
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_10323470d98b386ac0.jpg

I've seen cherry picking before, but that takes the cake.

 

[Schneibster]

He's posted a thing with a song attached now.

I think it's safe to write-off any chance of rational discourse with the capitalised one.

I'd have to agree with that.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

He's posted a thing with a song attached now.

I think it's safe to write-off any chance of rational discourse with the capitalised one.

The point is there is not a rational discourse occurring. I am more than capable of engaging in such an endeavor if it were occurring. I find the dismissal of evidence prior to its presentation evidence that there is no rationality happening here.

I just wanted to point this out.

Carry on.

 

[mhaze]

Here is the evidence that Schneibster does not care about evidence.

The argument is over.

His mind is made up, and if evidence surfaces that contradicts his pre-drawn conclusion it will be discounted.

I recommend this song

http://www.al-oholicsanonymous.com/sounds/yourepitiful.mp3

Yep. Good song, too.

 

[Schneibster]

So, basically what you're saying is that your plan was to scan the testimony, photoshop it, and present it as evidence. Otherwise, why do you care?

 

[David Rodale]

I've seen cherry picking before, but that takes the cake.

Here it is, sans satire. Would you like trend lines added? Remove the El Nino's (a non-GW phenomenon), and what do you think would happen to the graph?


Just for grins, look at my previous post and see what happened after Sept 1988. What do you think will happen after Sept. 2007, temperatures are going to rise?


BTW, below is a solar activity/temp vs CO2/temp correlation. What shall we make of it? FYI, an r=.22 is File 13.

 

[a_unique_person]

Here it is, sans satire. Would you like trend lines added? Remove the El Nino's (a non-GW phenomenon), and what do you think would happen to the graph?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_103234712dc60d3f99.jpg

Exactly what you wanted to happen to it, apparently. You can't remove the El Nino, they are a part of the feedback cycle, and are predicted to become more frequent and stronger, which is exactly what is happening.

 

[CapelDodger]

The point is there is not a rational discourse occurring. I am more than capable of engaging in such an endeavor if it were occurring. I find the dismissal of evidence prior to its presentation evidence that there is no rationality happening here.

I just wanted to point this out.

Carry on.

If this is in regard to Michaels lying to Congress, presumably the "evidence" you refer to is the Hansen 1988 testimony. As I've patiently and rationally pointed out this is not relevant, since Michaels lied about the model prediction, not about Hansen's 1988 testimony.

Here's that Michaels money-shot again :

"That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1)."

That prediction was for Scenario A, which Michaels knew had not transpired, yet he presented it as being the prediction of the model. A lie.

 

[Megalodon]

Here it is, sans satire. Would you like trend lines added? Remove the El Nino's (a non-GW phenomenon), and what do you think would happen to the graph?

Not much.





from b0=-01421, b1=0.0012 to b0=-0.1410, b1=0.0011

Of course, very significant...

The data is from the file linked in your image. It's still warming, any way you look at it.

BTW, below is a solar activity/temp vs CO2/temp correlation. What shall we make of it? FYI, an r=.22 is File 13.

No, you showed Artic temperature vs solar activity, and actually stopped at 2000.

 

[Megalodon]

Just in case anybody is curious, that gives you roughly 0.14ºC per decade.

Now, where did I place the CO2 values...

 

[mhaze]

Just in case anybody is curious, that gives you roughly 0.14ºC per decade.

Now, where did I place the CO2 values...

And Hansen's number for natural decadal variation was 0.13C. Tung 2007, computed decadal variation due to the solar activity alone at around 0.20C.

Did you intend to prove David Rodale's point?

 

[Megalodon]

And Hansen's number for natural decadal variation was 0.13C.

It was? was that before or after he asserted that Scenario A was the most plausible?

Your credibility is nil Mhaze, so you better get some links...

Did you intend to prove David Rodale's point?

He had no point. He made a question, thinking that he knew the answer. He blew it.

 

[Megalodon]

Tung 2007, computed decadal variation due to the solar activity alone at around 0.20C.

First Google link http://mediamatters.org/items/200708240003

But an August 9 New Scientist article on the mathematicians' research warned that "[c]limate-change skeptics may seize on the findings as evidence that the sun's variability can explain global warming -- but [the report's co-author] mathematician Ka-Kit Tung says quite the contrary is true." The New Scientist reported that Tung says his finding, in the New Scientist's words, "adds to the evidence that mainstream climate models are right about the likely extent of future human-generated warming."

From the third Google link http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=121

They concluded that from solar minimum to maximum (eg - from 1996 to 2001), the forcing from the sun increases global temperatures by 0.18°C. Conversely, from solar maximum to minimum (eg - from 2001 to 2007), the reduced forcing from the sun cools global temperatures by 0.18°C. This 11 year cycle is superimposed over the long term global warming trend.

Once again, you're flexible with the facts.

 

[mhaze]

It was? was that before or after he asserted that Scenario A was the most plausible?

Your credibility is nil Mhaze, so you better get some links...

He had no point. He made a question, thinking that he knew the answer. He blew it.

You should scurry off to find some links that show differing numbers for natural variation, if you can.

Or do you hold that natural variation is zero? Then of course, you might have a point. Some warmers do indeed hold that natural variation is zero. Do you?

 

[mhaze]

Is there Global Warming outside Natural Variation?

First Google link http://mediamatters.org/items/200708240003
From the third Google link http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=121
Once again, you're flexible with the facts.

You are presenting more data that there is a range of natural variation? More data to prove my point that David Rodale is correct in saying that there is no warming?

As for Tung 2007, the subject is not his overall conclusions, but the range of natural variability. I am well aware of the overall extent of his work and find it pretty laughable. That is a separate subject. We could discuss it if you like.

You did not simply answer the basic question -

Or do you hold that natural variation is zero? Then of course, you might have a point. Some warmers do indeed hold that natural variation is zero. Do you?

​

Why not just indicate what you think natural variation may be, provide the basis for your opinion, and then we could look at the alleged global warming based on that and see where our opinions may differ.


Originally Posted by David Rodale
BTW, below is a solar activity/temp vs CO2/temp correlation. What shall we make of it? FYI, an r=.22 is File 13.

No, you showed Artic temperature vs solar activity, and actually stopped at 2000.
​

Isn't Arctic temperature supposedly a prime indicator of alleged global warming?

 

[mhaze]

It was? was that before or after he asserted that Scenario A was the most plausible?

Your credibility is nil Mhaze, so you better get some links...

I see, Magalodon, that you have taken my sound advice from post #90 of the "A few Questions" thread -

All good warmers should racket up use of debate tactic such as smears. That is about all that is left.
​

As you have mentioned, your dissertation will not write itself. You will have to defend it, and it will not defend itself.

Smear tactics will not work for your defense of your dissertation. Here is your chance to practice and perfect good tactics for this important and difficult job ahead.

 

[David Rodale]

Not much.

from b0=-01421, b1=0.0012 to b0=-0.1410, b1=0.0011

Of course, very significant...

The data is from the file linked in your image. It's still warming, any way you look at it.



No, you showed Artic temperature vs solar activity, and actually stopped at 2000.

Scroll down to my last post, the last link concerning Arctic ice melt through 2007, particularly concerning the last few years for which a lot of news headlines and AGW blogs make much fanfare.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94182&page=12

You still didn't answer the question. Correlation r=.22 means there is essentially no link between CO2 and temperature fluctuations. Solar activity on the other hand has a strong correlation.

Since correlation is not causation, what direct evidence can you provide that supports the hypothesis CO2 drives temperature? It doesn't exist.

For all the supposed peer reviewed studies supporting AGW, if it were tallied up, your side really does more talking than presenting evidence. Mostly what we get are lectures, ad hom attacks galore, unsupported assumptions, and a whole lot of speculation.

 

[mhaze]

Soon GRL 2005 I have not had the pleasure of reading, but will have to get a copy.

A mid .70s correlation of arctic temperatures with solar activity, and a 0.22 correlation of CO2 with arctic activity.

Why would anyone want to stand behind the "CO2 drives climate" hypothesis?

Because they want to be losers?

 

[Schneibster]

Ummm, correlation is not causation? I believe you were the last one to use that particular bon mot.

 

[mhaze]

Soon GRL 2005 I have not had the pleasure of reading, but will have to get a copy.

A mid .70s correlation of arctic temperatures with solar activity, and a 0.22 correlation of CO2 with arctic activity.

Why would anyone want to stand behind the "CO2 drives climate" hypothesis?

Because they want to be losers?

But I have to be fair here.

David Rodale is the first to have answered the challenge to show some correlation between CO2 and temperature. Now we must revise the Challenge to ask for a better relationship than 0.22.