Global warming?
- Thread starter MCary
- Start date
- Status
greenbean36191
Premium Member
Larsen B had been there for at least 10,000 years. It wasn't seasonal ice. It's collapse was anything but normal. The Larsen A collapse was a little more normal in that it was only 4,000 years old.
The idea that global warming has stopped also isn't supported by any knowledgeable researchers because it's an untenable claim. It's still claimed that the poles are melting because they are.
Half-truths are fallacious arguments. Almost all of these statements have huge caveats that have been conveniently neglected.
The north pole gained 2 million sq. km of ice area during the winter... but the area covered by perennial ice has continued to shrink and even at this year's winter maximum the total ice cover was still below average.
Greenland ice has thickened.... but that's due to changes in precipitation patterns due to warmer water and air around the island that are bringing more snow. The edges are also melting faster than the middle is thickening and the mass of the ice is decreasing.
The Antarctic has grown by millions of gigatons... in one region. Other regions like the Antarctic peninsula are losing gigatons. Overall AFAIK there's no statistically significant trend either way for the continent.
The US is experiencing lower temps than 15 years ago and China is cooler than the last 100 years... but there has been no statistically significant decrease in temperature trends.
3000 probes put in the ocean by NASA have shown no increase in temp... but they're of a fairly new design with an unknown bias and are in direct contradiction with sea level measurements, sea surface temp records, and a 60 year/ 50 MILLION profile dataset of subsurface temps. The probes also initially showed a decrease in temp until it was discovered that they were reading erroneously cool. The paper's authors even caution that the data set is small and of unknown reliability.
They've been consistently right about the big picture. They've had mixed results on the details. Of course they've gone back and retooled what didn't work. That is the scientific process. When we get to the point that we can predict with 100% accuracy there will be no need for science anymore because we already understand everything. Until we understand how everything works, science will continue to make predictions, test them, and then go back and rework things to better fit the new evidence. If that wasn't happening, then you should be crying foul.
I still haven't seen any evidence of this fraud you keep alleging and the claim that scientists are trying to shoehorn contradictory evidence to fit seems pretty hollow to me based on the skeptical arguments I've seen. IME most of the the contradiction is due to straw men set up by skeptics.
greenbean36191
Premium Member
This argument is made over and over again, but I'd wager 90% of people who make it have no experience with grant money or how it works in an academic setting. The majority of people publishing on global warming aren't getting any more money from it than if they wrote about something else. This argument makes the assumption that researchers are getting a lot of money for grants, that specific topics get preference, and that researchers will return a desired result.
Typically at a university, as long as you're actively researching you get a set salary regardless of how often you publish or what about. The money you can keep from grants is usually capped at 2 or 3 months salary... if you have any left over. Getting the money isn't dependent on practical policy implications of the results or even what the results are as long as you can make a valid argument for them. All they want to know is that you have a novel, valid question, a plan for getting an answer, and usually that you're making real progress towards publication. There's no need to invent problems to get funding and no good reason to believe that writing about a specific topic is any more likely to get you funding. There are plenty of novel problems to ensure job security. In fact a great way to ensure your status and career is to work on entirely original problems or disprove prevailing theories.
As an example, under my current grant (NSF) I'm studying the effects of elevated sea temps on anemones and clownfish. All the grant proposal said was that the money would be used to study population dynamics and physiology of clownfish and anemones in the Red Sea. There wasn't any practical application proposed and there was no mention at all made about warming. There's no lack of problems that requires the manufacturing of global warming to keep scientists in business. There are plenty of other things within the scope of the grant that I could study. So how rich am I getting from this grant? Well, I don't have to pay for my transportation or lodging which is nice, but when all is said and done, if my results are publishable, I'll lose money on the deal.
Look at who's making the money from global warming. There are people on both sides, but for the most part researchers aren't.
Sorry Greenbean, your just wrong. I really respect your input and the thoughtfulness of it, but you make statements about disputed facts as if they are fact. Example:
Very promenent scientists at the pinnacle of the climatology field state they have no idea why ice is thickening in Greenland's interior. Yet, you claim you know and state it as fact.
Sidescan radar has clearly shown that antartica continues to expand yet you state as fact it isn't.
Expanding ice in antartica causes the mass of the shelf to be heavy and pushes it out into warmer waters causing it to eventually break off. This takes thousands of years. But, a clearer indicator would be a thermometer. There has been no warming in that reagion, so why don't we eliminate that as a cause. It seems an obvious conclusion.
If nothing else, to be intellectually honest, you at least must have reasonable doubt.
As far as the money trail, this is a valid argument. It cannot be dismissed just because it is inconveniant. Al Gore is brokering "Carbon Credits" this is akin to selling world of warcraft gold. Democratic politicians use global warming to drive that environemtal wedge into the electorate. NASA owes its existance to global warming. The IPCC depends on global warming to get paid.
Academia. Now there's something. I did some reading since your last post on Mann's graph. Yes, it could be repeated. Problem was, it produced the same results no matter what data was fed into it. Mcintosh and McKitrick plugged bogus data into the formula and got the same results. Now this is the important part, they presented there results to Nature magazine for peer review. And even though Nature had no problems publishing and peer reviewing Mann's fraudulent graph, they refused M&M. M&M had to find an alternate venue. What gives? How much more research is being blocked by this bias? Its easy to form a strong opinion when only one side is presented isn't it.
Mike
Very promenent scientists at the pinnacle of the climatology field state they have no idea why ice is thickening in Greenland's interior. Yet, you claim you know and state it as fact.
Sidescan radar has clearly shown that antartica continues to expand yet you state as fact it isn't.
Expanding ice in antartica causes the mass of the shelf to be heavy and pushes it out into warmer waters causing it to eventually break off. This takes thousands of years. But, a clearer indicator would be a thermometer. There has been no warming in that reagion, so why don't we eliminate that as a cause. It seems an obvious conclusion.
If nothing else, to be intellectually honest, you at least must have reasonable doubt.
As far as the money trail, this is a valid argument. It cannot be dismissed just because it is inconveniant. Al Gore is brokering "Carbon Credits" this is akin to selling world of warcraft gold. Democratic politicians use global warming to drive that environemtal wedge into the electorate. NASA owes its existance to global warming. The IPCC depends on global warming to get paid.
Academia. Now there's something. I did some reading since your last post on Mann's graph. Yes, it could be repeated. Problem was, it produced the same results no matter what data was fed into it. Mcintosh and McKitrick plugged bogus data into the formula and got the same results. Now this is the important part, they presented there results to Nature magazine for peer review. And even though Nature had no problems publishing and peer reviewing Mann's fraudulent graph, they refused M&M. M&M had to find an alternate venue. What gives? How much more research is being blocked by this bias? Its easy to form a strong opinion when only one side is presented isn't it.
Mike
greenbean36191
Premium Member
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/pdf/2006/Thomas_GreenlandIceLoss_GRL_2006.pdf
Al Gore doesn't have any more hand in writing the science than Fred Singer or Exxon do. Public figures and corporations on both sides stand to benefit from drumming up support or denial. The people actually doing the science benefit very little and it makes no difference in their pay which way they fall on the issue, yet the science is clear and falls overwhelmingly to one side.
When the corrections suggested by McIntyre and McKitrick were applied to the Mann model, the result was similar to the original graph. When different datasets and entirely different models were used, the results are still similar. The IPCC 4th assessment included a new graph that included about a dozen other reconstructions that used different data sets and different models and all reached similar conclusions. That suggests that the result was robust and wasn't simply an artifact of a flawed method.
Clearly the editorial staff at Nature is comprised of a bunch of treehugging bullies.
Nature is one of the most prestigious journals in the world. Most researchers will never have an article that makes the cut. MM's situation was hardly unique. The journal typically only takes the most groundbreaking work. Corrections that don't even change the outcome don't meet that criteria.With that said, MM did have a valid argument and as such it was picked up by a peer reviewed journal. McIntyre has had other work picked up in the primary literature as well. So have other skeptics. John Christy has had numerous publications, including in Science, the other top journal. They're hardly excluded from the peer-reviewed lit because of what they're saying. More than any publication bias, the thing keeping most skeptics from being heard in the primary lit is the inability to form a valid, tenable argument.
Last edited:
clownbob77
New member
A Simple Reply (or Question)
A Simple Reply (or Question)
I respectfully submit to you all one reader's observations. I have been selling corals for 20 years, and in the past 4 years or so, have seen a great decline in the health of specimens coming in, mainly from Indonesia.
It's obvious that there has been a change, but the cause is not yet fully understood. The last research I did was on the water temp off Bali, and the info I got stated it was 84. Imagine how your reef tank would react long term.
Agricultural runoff is probably a factor as well. as we all know what excessive nutrients will do. I see this in Elegance coral and other species that used to come in healthy, like Bubble coral. Lagoon corals... I see, and work with these animals everyday. Now go tell a poor farmer in Indonesia that he has two choices:
1) Stop poisoning the ocean, and starve slowly
2) Keep on doing things the way you are, and live today
Hmmmm.
The fish are more adaptable.
As for Global Warming being man-made, who knows for certain?
Can we do things to stop our contribution to it?
You all know the answer to that.
It makes sense. As Steve pointed out correctly, in my opinion, we have developed wasteful habits, which with time can be modified.
By the way, for those of you who don't know Steve Robinson's background in this industry, I can attest to his passion for trying to improve the lives of the animals collected for our hobby. I have worked with him for many years.
It all comes down to deciding which step to take here, Big steps or Baby steps.
I suggest a combination of the two is appropriate, and that we as Hobbyists can continue to expand our knowledge, and use it not only to help each other, but to better understand our world.
Politics are best left out of this. What does your heart say?
Happy reefing, and may you all be successful (for the animals)
Bob
A Simple Reply (or Question)
I respectfully submit to you all one reader's observations. I have been selling corals for 20 years, and in the past 4 years or so, have seen a great decline in the health of specimens coming in, mainly from Indonesia.
It's obvious that there has been a change, but the cause is not yet fully understood. The last research I did was on the water temp off Bali, and the info I got stated it was 84. Imagine how your reef tank would react long term.
Agricultural runoff is probably a factor as well. as we all know what excessive nutrients will do. I see this in Elegance coral and other species that used to come in healthy, like Bubble coral. Lagoon corals... I see, and work with these animals everyday. Now go tell a poor farmer in Indonesia that he has two choices:
1) Stop poisoning the ocean, and starve slowly
2) Keep on doing things the way you are, and live today
Hmmmm.
The fish are more adaptable.
As for Global Warming being man-made, who knows for certain?
Can we do things to stop our contribution to it?
You all know the answer to that.
It makes sense. As Steve pointed out correctly, in my opinion, we have developed wasteful habits, which with time can be modified.
By the way, for those of you who don't know Steve Robinson's background in this industry, I can attest to his passion for trying to improve the lives of the animals collected for our hobby. I have worked with him for many years.
It all comes down to deciding which step to take here, Big steps or Baby steps.
I suggest a combination of the two is appropriate, and that we as Hobbyists can continue to expand our knowledge, and use it not only to help each other, but to better understand our world.
Politics are best left out of this. What does your heart say?
Happy reefing, and may you all be successful (for the animals)
Bob
Grey Reefer
New member
As a third party observer, this is a very interesting debate. I've been keeping an eye on the thread curious to see how much if any politics would spill into the discussion. It is unfortunate that political pressure would and could shape scientific findings. Just remember you cannot deal in absolute truths if there are no absolute truths. Parachutes are like minds; they only work when open. One thing though, who stands to gain from Global Warming? Or if there is no such thing as Global Warming? Just throwing my .02 in the wishing well...
greenbean36191
Premium Member
That's MM's recalculation in their paper after they threw out about 60% of the original dataset. When the full, original dataset is used with McIntyre and McKitrick's method what do you get?
What do you get when you use different representative datasets and entirely different methods?
Can you find me anywhere the McIntyre and McKitrick soupbowl has been recreated using different datasets and methods?
What do you get when you use different representative datasets and entirely different methods?
Can you find me anywhere the McIntyre and McKitrick soupbowl has been recreated using different datasets and methods?
Grey Reefer
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12173261#post12173261 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
Actually, Greenbean misrepresented the science. I know it is impossible to change the mind of a true believer so I let it go. But it you want to know, and if you have an open mind I'll explain.
Greenbean data mined and produced graphs that suupported his contention. Similiar the the fraud that Mann did when he produced the now debunked "Hockey Stick Graph"
Here is a graph which is the same hadCRUT as greenbeans but show the trend from the peak to this years cold winter. This is up to date. But believe what you wish. Just don't try to be the moral authority of all that is good and evil with those that disagree.
As you can clearly see, a trendline put on this graph from 1998 to 2008, a ten year period, would clearly show a downward trend for the past 10 years. You absolutely cannot claim a dangerous correlation between increased CO2 and temperatures if the trend does not follow your predictions. After all, that's what a correlation is.
Mike
I can't believe anyone let this phenomenally disingenuous post go by. The data you've posted clearly shows a 20-year upward trend with an outlying local maximum in 1998. The graph demonstrates an extremely solid average temperature increase over the given domain.
Using this graph to point to anything other than a warming trend just displays a devotion to political expediency over accurate analysis.
In the first place, unlike GW advocates, I have no political agenda whatsoever. I only read and try to understand the data and let it take me where ever it goes. There is no consideration to effects of man on the planet and I could care less how much oil companies make. So please don't play that card.
Second, the graph was meant to show the past ten year cooling trend. We already know that the earth has been warming since the late 1970's. Just like prior to 1934 which mirrored closely 1998. Then the earth cooled to a low point in the 70's. My contention is that the climate is cyclical based mainly on sunspot activity. That the warming peaked in 1997-98 and we are on the downslope. If you remove the "noise" of a el nino event (which is not completely understood but is not contributed to GW) the trend for the past 10 years is cooling.
I'm sure you don't believe me, so I'd like you to print this post and read the following in 10 years:
I TOLD YOU SO!
I TOLD YOU SO!
I TOLD YOU SO!
NEENER NEENER NEENER!
SUCKA!
Mike
Second, the graph was meant to show the past ten year cooling trend. We already know that the earth has been warming since the late 1970's. Just like prior to 1934 which mirrored closely 1998. Then the earth cooled to a low point in the 70's. My contention is that the climate is cyclical based mainly on sunspot activity. That the warming peaked in 1997-98 and we are on the downslope. If you remove the "noise" of a el nino event (which is not completely understood but is not contributed to GW) the trend for the past 10 years is cooling.
I'm sure you don't believe me, so I'd like you to print this post and read the following in 10 years:
I TOLD YOU SO!
I TOLD YOU SO!
I TOLD YOU SO!
NEENER NEENER NEENER!
SUCKA!
Mike
The models predicting the Higgs boson are, by definition, unverified until it's found. But, you don't notice that the Standard Model has successfully predicted other related particles and all have been varified so far but the Higgs boson particle.
How can we varify the weather models? What tests will provide enough data to verify them?
Wolverine
Premium Member
I do notice that, but I also notice that the symmetry (or supre-symmetry, depending on what you're reading) falls apart with Higgs. Without it, the rest of the model will have to be reworked.
There are two ways to verify the weather models. One is time. We make the predictions now, and we see where they go. There are obvious downsides to this, especially if the gw advocates are correct. Another is to look at conditions in the past, plus those into the models, and see how well they predict where we are now. Of course, this all depends on which models and how they were made. If they are made with too much retrospective data, there will simply be a circular data collection, which won't show you too much. However, if they are based on more recent data and correction of previous models, this can be a great technique to use (it's used quite often in medicine).
Dave
Wolverine
Premium Member
As Greenbean mentioned, Nature is an extremely competitive journal to get into (as is Science). Them saying this tells nothing of the quality of the work they did or the quality of the writing they did to present it. That doesn't imply that there's an suppression of the work, just that it wasn't enough to qualify in that level of journal.
Dave
virginiadiver69
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12150973#post12150973 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by billsreef
That was because it was political in nature
Interesting... so simply stating a personal opinion is political in nature? Unless there was more to the statement, I don't see the politics.Could it be that the statement was really a matter of blasphemy?
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12321009#post12321009 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
Could it be that the statement was really a matter of blasphemy?
There was more to it
- Status
Similar threads
