The Focus Fusion Society Forums Noise, ZPE, AGW (capped*) etc. GW Skeptics vs Scientific Concensus

Viewing 11 posts - 181 through 191 (of 191 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #6801
    Breakable
    Keymaster

    Phil’s Dad wrote: So what “shady methods” is Svensmark employing?
    (and can we agree that not all scientists are advocates and not all advocates are scientists?)

    I don’t have any dirt against Svensmark, so probably he is legit,
    still he seems far away from a full hypothesis, even further to a full alternative theory for AGW.

    Edit:Regarding the advocates vs scientists, actually all scientists are skeptics (or at least should be). Ok, not all them are convinced of AGW at the moment.

    #6831
    Brian H
    Participant

    mchargue wrote: Spot on, Newbie and Old Timer. Spot on.

    It was depressing to read through code snippets that showed outright manipulation of the data, all in the name of ‘homogenizing’ it. Also insightful was the read of the documentation that read as a lamentation of the data set, the code base, and the manipulations that were applied to produce the desired results.

    Sadly, while all of science will take a hit if it does not clean its house out, politically-safe AGW will likely trundle on. Sadly, there’s just too much money at stake to allow truth, or common sense, to win out.

    Unless scientists of all stripes speak out against this, they will all be treated with the same (justified) derision.

    Pat

    Just thought I’d bring back this crucial posting before this thread gets capped. The suppression of data, grotesque “trimming” of data sources, from NZ to the Canadian Arctic to the Andes to Siberia, by the CRU Crew is now well documented. Considering how grossly inadequate the “grid sizing” of even the full panoply of available data collection points would be for a workable simulation of the atmosphere, cutting down sources (e.g., using 1 out of the 100 available weather stations in the Canadian Arctic north of the Arctic Circle, and that one well within the palpable “heat bubble” of a town) is gatekeeping of the most egregious sort.

    To clarify the term “homogenization” above, it is used, when appropriate, to mean “rendering continuous and consistent” when there is any kind of change in the recording apparatus or location at a particular site. The laws of chance suggest that about half of such adjustments should tend to be to increase baselines/measured temperatures, and half to decrease. It is remarkable, to the point of incredibly improbable, that 100% of such “homogenizations” in the CRU-utilized data set are upwards. The same remarkable pattern of “adjustments” appears throughout the code, as well; all the “fixes” have the net effect of increasing the inputs and/or outputs of the models.
    The “fix is in”, in Spades.
    _______
    To summarize the anti-AGW scientific case, watch the presentation by a PhD in Geology, H. Leighton Steward. As opposed to the “pal-reviewed” material so often held up by the CRU Crew as the gold standard, utilizes over 2900 actually peer-reviewed papers from the full range of real specialists within the field:
    Steward Ph.D., H. Leighton 19:56 May 19, 2010 Empirical Evidence (Paleoclimates) and the Disconnect of Climate Change

    (The link is to a conference with 74 presentations last month; they are listed by surname–click on Steward’s to get the above talk.)

    The material presented here, contrary to the canned talking-point claim above, has been “debunked” only in classic superficial handwaving style by the Team at Real Climate and other stooges of the CRU Cabal desperate to keep the multi-billion dollar GW gravy train growing exponentially.

    #6832
    Brian H
    Participant

    mchargue wrote: I read the entire paper. From the conclusions comes,
    —–
    From what we understand about the underlying
    processes, uptake of atmospheric CO2 should react not to a
    change in emissions, but to a change in concentrations. A
    further analysis of the likely contributing processes is necessary
    in order to establish the reasons for a near-constant AF
    since the start of industrialization. The hypothesis of a recent
    or secular trend in the AF cannot be supported on the basis of
    the available data and its accuracy.
    —–

    It seems clear that the author is talking about the a atmospheric fraction (AF) that is ‘nearly constant’ since the start of industrialization. All the talk about increases seems to be speaking to the increase in the amount of CO2 industrialization injects into the atmosphere, and to the amount of natural sequestration that’s taking place.

    The take-away point seems to be that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is nearly constant, and has been for some 150 years.

    Pat

    Indeed. The 45% which persists beyond one cycle is a result of mixing, which is counter-balance by “other” CO2 which is sequestered by the same bio-geological processes which have turned most of the planet’s supply into limestones, etc., over the past few hundred million years.
    If anything, the density and mass of the atmosphere have dropped considerably over that time span, possibly by a factor of 2 or more, over that time, so the total mass of CO2 has probably gone down substantially.

    #6833
    Brian H
    Participant

    Breakable wrote:

    Not to mention that the “harm” is not just theoretical, but imaginary. Warm periods of recorded and paleo-history have been boom times. Ask the Ice Man, Romans, Vikings, and Medieval Warm Period (and Renaissance) inhabitants.

    If there is no such thing as global warming there is no need to disprove its effects.
    If the historic data is unreliable how do we know what was the climate for Ice Man or others?
    Still it is pretty interesting as there a only rainbows and flowers sticking from every statement that is supporting GW.
    From my point of view a Cyprus summer is pretty hot ~40c. If you were living here, you might change your mind about wanting a warmer climate.
    And btw green-illuminates have faked up some models that predict warming will not be so beneficial for plants, so probably Africa will get more rocky than green if we wont submit our freedoms immediately.
    Re: the Ice Man: he was walking through a pass which has been under deep glaciation until recently. And was not heavily clothed. There is ample evidence that those passes were open then, and are opening again, and have periodically been open. This is similar to the uncovering of large tree stumps by retreating Greenland glaciers; there was clearly a warm period when the trees grew large before being buried. This kind of “historical” evidence is about as solid as you could possibly ask for, and is widely available. The MWP was never in doubt until it became an inconvenience for the hysterical assertions that we are in or moving into “the hottest climate ever”.
    As for the 40°C in Cyprus, the lower latitudes of the planet vary less than the poles, by a large factor. Warm eras have less ice near the poles, and you get vinyards in Scotland. Cold periods have ice year round down to the Med and Allegheny. Pick one.

    #6839
    Brian H
    Participant

    vansig wrote:

    Retro-casting is useful for generating speculations and eventually hypotheses. Actual predictions require full disclosure of model variables and algorithms, plus input data set, which are then frozen (no touch, no fiddle) for the duration of the prediction. A reasonable fit fails to disprove the forecast model; a failure invalidates it completely (since the specific reason can only be guessed at — for which you need a brand new square one re-prediction and test.) Enough failures to disprove, despite best (honest) efforts, and you MAY begin to put some reliance on the model.

    None of the Warmist scenario-games meet any of those criteria.

    Stunt FOIA requests do not really expose a lack of full disclosure.

    Let’s lock in Hansen’s predictions made in 1988. There were three scenarios, A, B, and C.
    Observations are now out of agreement with A; but B and C are still good.
    http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/models-dont-work.html
    Actually not. The most plausible match is C, which was predicated on halting all CO2 emission increase by 2000. In fact of course the emissions have continued to surge — yet the temperature graph has plateaued anyway. Once more demonstrating the irrelevance of CO2 to global climate.

    As for the ignorant phrasing “stunt FOIA requests”, that’s just libelous. The requests were very few in number, actually, and were rejected out of hand, illegally. In fact Jones et al. were planning secretly to erase their data if anyone twigged to the change in the UK laws which required its release. Apparently they did so, though of course Jones claimed he lost the paperwork in his messy office. LOL! “The dog ate it!”

    P.S. Don’t post some link to Jones’ et al’s “adjusted” data. That’s irrelevant. It’s only the raw data that has any value. Plus, of course, the details of the “adjustment” techniques, which have also been withheld, lost, and/or dog-eaten.

    #6842
    Breakable
    Keymaster

    Knock yourself out Brian. You have until June 7. This was made for your benefit actually,
    as there is not much facts in the misinformation you spread.
    So you are back to the “Muddying the waters” tactic now? What about the “Silver bullet”?
    I would be interested to discuss any sensitive position with any sceptic, but the postion of
    “There is NO GW,
    but if there is one it is certainly not AGW,
    even if there is AGW we cannot predict it,
    and even if we can predict it is actually beneficial.”
    is not skeptical. It is just presumptuous.

    #6844
    Brian H
    Participant

    We’re in the coldest part of the interglacial since about 10,000 years ago (see attached graph).

    Attached files

    #6846
    Henning
    Participant

    Brian H wrote: We’re in the coldest part of the interglacial since about 10,000 years ago (see attached graph).

    Nice cherry-picking.

    #6847
    Breakable
    Keymaster

    Great! Back to “silver bullet”. Much easier to debunk:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png

    #6848
    Breakable
    Keymaster

    Brian H wrote:

    It seems clear that the author is talking about the a atmospheric fraction (AF) that is ‘nearly constant’ since the start of industrialization. All the talk about increases seems to be speaking to the increase in the amount of CO2 industrialization injects into the atmosphere, and to the amount of natural sequestration that’s taking place.
    The take-away point seems to be that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is nearly constant, and has been for some 150 years.

    Pat

    Indeed. The 45% which persists beyond one cycle is a result of mixing, which is counter-balance by “other” CO2 which is sequestered by the same bio-geological processes which have turned most of the planet’s supply into limestones, etc., over the past few hundred million years.
    If anything, the density and mass of the atmosphere have dropped considerably over that time span, possibly by a factor of 2 or more, over that time, so the total mass of CO2 has probably gone down substantially.
    So now the earths atmosphere is shrinking at an accelerating pace to produce the apparent increase in co2 concentration,
    all while the fossil fuel emissions are being magically sequestrated in the limestone – yes that’s how the world works:
    “CONSPIRACY AND MAGIC”.

    #6864
    Rezwan
    Participant

    Happy Monday!

    This thread is now officially capped, per our new GW Policy.

Viewing 11 posts - 181 through 191 (of 191 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.