The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s.
But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate "scientists", now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.
Carbon dioxide warming is too minor to be worth worrying about
David Evans
Apr 7 2011
QUOTE:
There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.
QUOTE:
They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30ŗC per decade in 1990, to 0.20ŗC per decade in 2001, and now 0.15ŗC per decade - yet they have the gall to tell us "it's worse than expected." These people are not scientists. They overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they conceal the truth.
The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings.
I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.
Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools out of our politicians.
Let's set a few things straight.
The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s.
But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate "scientists", now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.
Let's be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.
Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet's temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.
The disagreement comes about what happens next.
The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain?
Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.
This is the core idea of every official climate model:
For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three - so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.
That's the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.
Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year.
The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above.
During the warming of the late 1970s, '80s and '90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.
This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.
At this point, official "climate science" stopped being a science.
In TRUE science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory.
If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory.
But official climate "science" ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory - that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.
There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.
But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable.
It is no surprise that their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the US Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.
They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30ŗC per decade in 1990, to 0.20ŗC per decade in 2001, and now 0.15ŗC per decade - yet they have the gall to tell us "it's worse than expected." These people are not scientists. They overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they conceal the truth.
One way they conceal is in the way they measure temperature.
The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at waste-water plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings.
Global warming is measured in 10ths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge is important. In the US, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source.
Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7 without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has levelled off. Why does official science track only the surface thermometer results and not mention the satellite results?
The Earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680.
Human emissions of carbon dioxide were negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after the Second World War, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend. Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25 to 30 years at a go in each direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild global cooling for the next two decades.
We are now at an extraordinary juncture.
Official climate "science", which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government - how exciting for the political class!
Even if we stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the Stone Age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015ŗC. But their models exaggerate 10-fold - in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015ŗC cooler!
Finally, to those who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: Sorry, but you've been had.
Yes, carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming, but it's so minor it's not worth doing much about.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat"
Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Professor of Meteorology MIT, Former IPCC Lead Author
"It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period."
> ... > Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems > that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a > couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily > journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.
> Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher
> "The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that > it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of > mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."
> Bertrand Russell
Yep, follows the rule of "follow the money."
--
Regards, JS The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, its an instrument for the people to restrain the government. -- Patrick Henry
> The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global > warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence > during the 1990s.
Of course. Those of us with who understand what the models (the only source of catastrophe prediction) are actually trying to do, could see plainly that the basic assumptions of a sensitive climate subject to only positive feedbacks, was nothing but a guess. It has been shown time and time again to be the wrong guess, as evidenced by the continuing track record of failure of the models to predict not only the temperature changes, but now even the direction of those changes. As temperatures continue to fall, the model results become more and more embarrassing.
> But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading > profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and > total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, > the governments, and their tame climate "scientists", now outrageously > maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.
> Carbon dioxide warming is too minor to be worth worrying about
> David Evans
> Apr 7 2011
> QUOTE:
> There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth > responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the > warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any > disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is > no exception, and now we can prove it.
> QUOTE:
> They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30ŗC per > decade in 1990, to 0.20ŗC per decade in 2001, and now 0.15ŗC per decade - > yet they have the gall to tell us "it's worse than expected." These people > are not scientists. They overestimate the temperature increases due to > carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they conceal the truth.
> The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is > full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings.
> I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the > evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.
> Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This > issue is tearing society apart, making fools out of our politicians.
> Let's set a few things straight.
> The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global > warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence > during the 1990s.
> But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading > profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and > total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, > the governments, and their tame climate "scientists", now outrageously > maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.
> Let's be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other > things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the > planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the > issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.
> Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in > the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet's temperature, if just the > extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory > experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.
> The disagreement comes about what happens next.
> The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. > Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the > oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air > in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain?
> Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The > alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the > planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is > also a greenhouse gas.
> This is the core idea of every official climate model:
> For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing > three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify > the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three - so two-thirds of their > projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only > one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.
> That's the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings > spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in > the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that > is at the core of their alarmism.
> Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many > thousands of them every year.
> The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist > air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of > moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above.
> During the warming of the late 1970s, '80s and '90s, the weather balloons > found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves > that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly > overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.
> This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.
> At this point, official "climate science" stopped being a science.
> In TRUE science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much > you are in love with the theory.
> If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory.
> But official climate "science" ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, > and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their > carbon dioxide theory - that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs > with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their > government masters.
> There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth > responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the > warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any > disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is > no exception, and now we can prove it.
> But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies > any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable.
> It is no surprise that their predictions of planetary temperature made in > 1988 to the US Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved > much higher than reality.
> They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30ŗC per > decade in 1990, to 0.20ŗC per decade in 2001, and now 0.15ŗC per decade - > yet they have the gall to tell us "it's worse than expected." These people > are not scientists. They overestimate the temperature increases due to > carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they conceal the truth.
> One way they conceal is in the way they measure temperature.
> The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air > conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of > hot air from jet engines, at waste-water plants where they get warmth from > decomposing sewage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings.
> Global warming is measured in 10ths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge > is important. In the US, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by > volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close > to an artificial heating source.
> Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the > whole planet 24/7 without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year > was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has levelled off. Why > does official science track only the surface thermometer results and not > mention the satellite results?
> The Earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age > around 1680.
> Human emissions of carbon dioxide were negligible before 1850 and have > nearly all come after the Second World War, so human carbon dioxide cannot > possibly have caused the trend. Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal > Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25 to 30 years > at a go in each direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect > mild global cooling for the next two decades.
> We are now at an extraordinary juncture.
> Official climate "science", which is funded and directed entirely by > government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that > is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because > the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government > control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might > even lead to world government - how exciting for the political class!
> Even if we stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up > shop and went back to the Stone Age, according to the official government > climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015ŗC. But their models > exaggerate 10-fold - in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a > mere 0.0015ŗC cooler!
> Finally, to those who still believe the planet is in
On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 14:07:59 +1000, Oy rool out a carbon tax wrote:
> warmcon wrote: >> Climate Models Go Cold
>> The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent >> global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical >> evidence during the 1990s. > Of course. Those of us with who understand what the models (the only > source of catastrophe prediction) are actually trying to do, could see > plainly that the basic assumptions of a sensitive climate subject to > only positive feedbacks, was nothing but a guess.
Only if you consider all of science as being guesswork, a similar position to the one that creationists take against the theory of evolution.
> It has been shown time > and time again to be the wrong guess, as evidenced by the continuing > track record of failure of the models to predict not only the > temperature changes, but now even the direction of those changes. > As temperatures continue to fall, the model results become more and more > embarrassing.
> The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global > warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence > during the 1990s.
> But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading > profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and > total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, > the governments, and their tame climate "scientists", now outrageously > maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.
> Carbon dioxide warming is too minor to be worth worrying about
> David Evans
> Apr 7 2011
> QUOTE:
> There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth > responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the > warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any > disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is > no exception, and now we can prove it.
> QUOTE:
> They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30ŗC per > decade in 1990, to 0.20ŗC per decade in 2001, and now 0.15ŗC per decade - > yet they have the gall to tell us "it's worse than expected." These people > are not scientists. They overestimate the temperature increases due to > carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they conceal the truth.
> The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is > full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings.
> I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the > evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.
> Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This > issue is tearing society apart, making fools out of our politicians.
> Let's set a few things straight.
> The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global > warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence > during the 1990s.
> But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading > profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and > total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, > the governments, and their tame climate "scientists", now outrageously > maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.
> Let's be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other > things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the > planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the > issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.
> Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in > the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet's temperature, if just the > extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory > experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.
> The disagreement comes about what happens next.
> The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. > Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the > oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air > in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain?
> Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The > alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the > planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is > also a greenhouse gas.
> This is the core idea of every official climate model:
> For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing > three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify > the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three - so two-thirds of their > projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only > one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.
> That's the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings > spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in > the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that > is at the core of their alarmism.
> Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many > thousands of them every year.
> The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist > air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of > moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above.
> During the warming of the late 1970s, '80s and '90s, the weather balloons > found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves > that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly > overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.
> This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.
> At this point, official "climate science" stopped being a science.
> In TRUE science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much > you are in love with the theory.
> If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory.
> But official climate "science" ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, > and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their > carbon dioxide theory - that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs > with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their > government masters.
> There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth > responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the > warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any > disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is > no exception, and now we can prove it.
> But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies > any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable.
> It is no surprise that their predictions of planetary temperature made in > 1988 to the US Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved > much higher than reality.
> They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30ŗC per > decade in 1990, to 0.20ŗC per decade in 2001, and now 0.15ŗC per decade - > yet they have the gall to tell us "it's worse than expected." These people > are not scientists. They overestimate the temperature increases due to > carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they conceal the truth.
> One way they conceal is in the way they measure temperature.
> The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air > conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of > hot air from jet engines, at waste-water plants where they get warmth from > decomposing sewage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings.
> Global warming is measured in 10ths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge > is important. In the US, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by > volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close > to an artificial heating source.
> Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the > whole planet 24/7 without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year > was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has levelled off. Why > does official science track only the surface thermometer results and not > mention the satellite results?
> The Earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age > around 1680.
> Human emissions of carbon dioxide were negligible before 1850 and have > nearly all come after the Second World War, so human carbon dioxide cannot > possibly have caused the trend. Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal > Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25 to 30 years > at a go in each direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect > mild global cooling for the next two decades.
> We are now at an extraordinary juncture.
> Official climate "science", which is funded and directed entirely by > government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that > is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because > the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government > control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might > even lead to world government - how exciting for the political class!
> Even if we stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up > shop and went back to the Stone Age, according to the official government > climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015ŗC. But their models > exaggerate 10-fold - in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a > mere 0.0015ŗC cooler!
> Finally, to those who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon > dioxide emissions: Sorry, but you've been had.
> Yes, carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming, but it's so minor it's not > worth doing much about.
> "It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps > US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists > worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct > from natural variation."
> Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
> "If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip > now due to mankind. The planet has a
Sapient Fridge wrote: > On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 14:07:59 +1000, Oy rool out a carbon tax wrote:
>> warmcon wrote: >>> Climate Models Go Cold
>>> The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent >>> global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical >>> evidence during the 1990s. >> Of course. Those of us with who understand what the models (the only >> source of catastrophe prediction) are actually trying to do, could see >> plainly that the basic assumptions of a sensitive climate subject to >> only positive feedbacks, was nothing but a guess.
> Only if you consider all of science as being guesswork, a similar position > to the one that creationists take against the theory of evolution.
No need. Only one exception is needed to knock down a theory. The last decade of actual temperature against model predictions gives us that. And the failure of the models is their insistence on using (only) positive feedbacks on a sensitive climate.
>> It has been shown time >> and time again to be the wrong guess, as evidenced by the continuing >> track record of failure of the models to predict not only the >> temperature changes, but now even the direction of those changes. >> As temperatures continue to fall, the model results become more and more >> embarrassing.
> Err, you do know that 2010 tied with 1998 as a record high temperature in > recent times don't you? Where is this temperature fall?
So you cherry pick two temperatures and declare that the temperature over that decade can't be falling? I'm guessing statistics is not your strong point. Do you expect a nice smooth, well behaved response from a chaotic system? Maybe only when the ragged "trend" doesn't look like a warming one?
-- "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years. " -- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery - Australian Climate Commissar
On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 12:08:16 +1000, Oy rool out a carbon tax wrote:
> Sapient Fridge wrote:
<snip>
>>> It has been shown time >>> and time again to be the wrong guess, as evidenced by the continuing >>> track record of failure of the models to predict not only the >>> temperature changes, but now even the direction of those changes. As >>> temperatures continue to fall, the model results become more and more >>> embarrassing.
>> Err, you do know that 2010 tied with 1998 as a record high temperature >> in recent times don't you? Where is this temperature fall? > So you cherry pick two temperatures and declare that the temperature > over that decade can't be falling? I'm guessing statistics is not your > strong point.
> On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 12:08:16 +1000, Oy rool out a carbon tax wrote:
>> Sapient Fridge wrote:
> <snip>
>>>> It has been shown time >>>> and time again to be the wrong guess, as evidenced by the continuing >>>> track record of failure of the models to predict not only the >>>> temperature changes, but now even the direction of those changes. As >>>> temperatures continue to fall, the model results become more and more >>>> embarrassing.
>>> Err, you do know that 2010 tied with 1998 as a record high temperature >>> in recent times don't you? Where is this temperature fall? >> So you cherry pick two temperatures and declare that the temperature >> over that decade can't be falling? I'm guessing statistics is not your >> strong point.
> The trend is still upwards, no matter how you look at it. Have a look at > the "Intermediate" link on that web page.
The "trend" ?
Temperatures have been the same or less than the peak in 1998 for at least 12 years. There has been no global warming at all in that period.
The "trend" over the last 12 years has been a cooling one.
>> Do you expect a nice smooth, well behaved response from a >> chaotic system? Maybe only when the ragged "trend" doesn't look like a >> warming one?
> Why not just admit that you can't support your statement that temperatures > are falling? It would have been much quicker to type. > --
Temperatures *are* falling, or at least have been for 12 years.
At least according to WMO and NASA, who cite 1998 as the warmest year ever, and every year since then the same or cooler.
" However, some information sources -- blogs, websites, media articles and other voices -- highlight that the planet has been cooling since a peak in global temperature in 1998. This cooling is only part of the picture, according to a recent study that has looked at the world's temperature record over the past century or more. "
Sapient Fridge wrote: > On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 12:08:16 +1000, Oy rool out a carbon tax wrote:
>> Sapient Fridge wrote:
> <snip>
>>>> It has been shown time >>>> and time again to be the wrong guess, as evidenced by the continuing >>>> track record of failure of the models to predict not only the >>>> temperature changes, but now even the direction of those changes. As >>>> temperatures continue to fall, the model results become more and more >>>> embarrassing. >>> Err, you do know that 2010 tied with 1998 as a record high temperature >>> in recent times don't you? Where is this temperature fall? >> So you cherry pick two temperatures and declare that the temperature >> over that decade can't be falling? I'm guessing statistics is not your >> strong point.
> The trend is still upwards, no matter how you look at it. Have a look at > the "Intermediate" link on that web page.
Trouble is, people with little scientific or statistics backgrounds just believe what they are shown. Trend lines are, well... linear. They only have a _physical_ connection to the underlying phenomenon if that too is linear. They are a statistical construct, not a reflection of what's happening in an underlying process. I often get new players to do a simple exercise:
o Open Excel and generate data for the formula y = x*(4-x) over the domain of x: 0->4, with 0.1 increments in x o Plot the points on a scatter chart o Get Excel to draw in trend lines for a variety of domain subsets - 0->1, 0->2, 0->3, 0->3.9
Guess what? There will *always* be an increasing trend line! Even when the actual values associated with the _actual_ underlying function are decreasing. Now, call y "temperature". There is always a "warming trend" even when the actual temperature is _actually_ decreasing. See how easy it is to be fooled by "statistics"? Go on... give it a try yourself.
>> Do you expect a nice smooth, well behaved response from a >> chaotic system? Maybe only when the ragged "trend" doesn't look like a >> warming one?
> Why not just admit that you can't support your statement that temperatures > are falling? It would have been much quicker to type.
Why not just admit that you understand neither science nor statistics. You have been conned... and so easily too.
-- "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years. " -- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery - Australian Climate Commissar
> The trend is still upwards, no matter how you look at it. Have a look at > the "Intermediate" link on that web page.
...
Step back and wait for the science illiterates to draw a line between 2 hand selected extrema less than 30 years apart. :)
-- "Global warming" refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. -- Dr Roy W. Spencer, "Global Warming", 2008
Earth's atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without those gases. -- Dr Roy W. Spencer, "Global Warming", 2008
This is what the real climate scientist Dr Roy Spencer said. -- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [100 nyms and counting], 3 Mar 2011 16:29 +1100
>> The trend is still upwards, no matter how you look at it. Have a look at >> the "Intermediate" link on that web page. > ...
> Step back and wait for the science illiterates to draw a line between > 2 hand selected extrema less than 30 years apart. :)
Like the science illiterate who would draw a straight line across the top of a non-linear function with a turning point in its domain.
-- "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years. " -- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery - Australian Climate Commissar
On Jun 9, 3:00 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> wrote:
> "Sapient Fridge" <use_reply_addr...@example.com> wrote in message > > The trend is still upwards, no matter how you look at it. Have a look at > > the "Intermediate" link on that web page.
> The "trend" ?
Uh-oh. Peter will now attempt to display his brilliant understanding of what "trend" means....
> Temperatures have been the same or less than the peak in 1998 for at least > 12 years. There has been no global warming at all in that period.
False on two counts. A trend is not based on comparing everything to one cherry-picked outlyer peak. The ten-year average in 1998, for example, was far less than the 10-year-average in 2008. In other words, the warming trend continued from 1998 to 2008, and the decade 2001-2010 was, in fact, the warmest decade on record.
It seems you lack the understanding of science or statistics to engage in any meaningful debate on this issue. Just like all the other deniers: ignorant, opinionated morons, the lot of you.
> The "trend" over the last 12 years has been a cooling one.
False. No statistically-significant trend can be adduced from 12 years of climate data.
> Temperatures *are* falling, or at least have been for 12 years.
False. The last decade was the hottest on record. Global warming is a reality.
> At least according to WMO and NASA, who cite 1998 as the warmest year ever, > and every year since then the same or cooler.
A temperature trend is not calculated based on comparing any two years.
Your "understanding" is wrong.
> Do you think NASA and WMO are wrong?
No, *you* are wrong. The last decade was the warmest on record. It is clearly warming.
CraigZ wrote: > On Jun 9, 3:00 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> > wrote: >> "Sapient Fridge" <use_reply_addr...@example.com> wrote in message
>>> The trend is still upwards, no matter how you look at it. Have a look at >>> the "Intermediate" link on that web page. >> The "trend" ?
> Uh-oh. Peter will now attempt to display his brilliant understanding > of what "trend" means....
>> Temperatures have been the same or less than the peak in 1998 for at least >> 12 years. There has been no global warming at all in that period.
> False on two counts. A trend is not based on comparing everything to > one cherry-picked outlyer peak. The ten-year average in 1998, for > example, was far less than the 10-year-average in 2008. In other > words, the warming trend continued from 1998 to 2008, and the decade > 2001-2010 was, in fact, the warmest decade on record.
> It seems you lack the understanding of science or statistics to engage > in any meaningful debate on this issue. Just like all the other > deniers: ignorant, opinionated morons, the lot of you.
>> The "trend" over the last 12 years has been a cooling one.
> False. No statistically-significant trend can be adduced from 12 years > of climate data.
>> Temperatures *are* falling, or at least have been for 12 years.
> False. The last decade was the hottest on record. Global warming is a > reality.
>> At least according to WMO and NASA, who cite 1998 as the warmest year ever, >> and every year since then the same or cooler.
> A temperature trend is not calculated based on comparing any two > years.
> Your "understanding" is wrong.
>> Do you think NASA and WMO are wrong?
> No, *you* are wrong. The last decade was the warmest on record. It is > clearly warming.
Trouble is, people with little scientific or statistics backgrounds just believe what they are shown. Trend lines are, well... linear. They only have a _physical_ connection to the underlying phenomenon if that too is linear. They are a statistical construct, not a reflection of what's happening in an underlying process. I often get new players to do a simple exercise:
o Open Excel and generate data for the formula y = x*(4-x) over the domain of x: 0->4, with 0.1 increments in x o Plot the points on a scatter chart o Get Excel to draw in trend lines for a variety of domain subsets - 0->1, 0->2, 0->3, 0->3.9
Guess what? There will *always* be an increasing trend line! Even when the actual values associated with the _actual_ underlying function are decreasing. Now, call y "temperature". There is always a "warming trend" even when the actual temperature is _actually_ decreasing. See how easy it is to be fooled by "statistics"? Go on... give it a try yourself.
Easier still, why not just admit that you understand neither science nor statistics. You have been conned... and so easily too.
-- "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years. " -- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery - Australian Climate Commissar
In article <e5b0d128-cd13-442b-be52-b3cd9bdf2...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
CraigZ <craig.z.thomp...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Jun 9, 3:00=A0pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> >wrote: >> At least according to WMO and NASA, who cite 1998 as the warmest year eve= >r, >> and every year since then the same or cooler.
>A temperature trend is not calculated based on comparing any two >years.
>Your "understanding" is wrong.
The tallest person who ever lived was born in 1918 and died in 1940. Every person born since then has been shorter than this guy.
Conclusion: The human race is getting shorter.
Are you trying to tell me this logic is wrong?!?!?!?!?!?!!?
> CraigZ wrote: >> On Jun 9, 3:00 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> >> wrote: >>> "Sapient Fridge" <use_reply_addr...@example.com> wrote in message >>>> The trend is still upwards, no matter how you look at it. Have a look at >>>> the "Intermediate" link on that web page. >>> The "trend" ? >> Uh-oh. Peter will now attempt to display his brilliant understanding >> of what "trend" means....
>>> Temperatures have been the same or less than the peak in 1998 for at least >>> 12 years. There has been no global warming at all in that period. >> False on two counts. A trend is not based on comparing everything to >> one cherry-picked outlyer peak. The ten-year average in 1998, for >> example, was far less than the 10-year-average in 2008. In other >> words, the warming trend continued from 1998 to 2008, and the decade >> 2001-2010 was, in fact, the warmest decade on record.
>> It seems you lack the understanding of science or statistics to engage >> in any meaningful debate on this issue. Just like all the other >> deniers: ignorant, opinionated morons, the lot of you.
>>> The "trend" over the last 12 years has been a cooling one. >> False. No statistically-significant trend can be adduced from 12 years >> of climate data.
>>> Temperatures *are* falling, or at least have been for 12 years. >> False. The last decade was the hottest on record. Global warming is a >> reality.
>>> At least according to WMO and NASA, who cite 1998 as the warmest year ever, >>> and every year since then the same or cooler. >> A temperature trend is not calculated based on comparing any two >> years.
>> Your "understanding" is wrong.
>>> Do you think NASA and WMO are wrong? >> No, *you* are wrong. The last decade was the warmest on record. It is >> clearly warming.
> Trouble is, people with little scientific or statistics backgrounds just > believe what they are shown. Trend lines are, well... linear. They only > have a _physical_ connection to the underlying phenomenon if that too is > linear. They are a statistical construct, not a reflection of what's > happening in an underlying process. I often get new players to do a > simple exercise:
> o Open Excel and generate data for the formula > y = x*(4-x) over the domain of x: 0->4, with 0.1 increments in x > o Plot the points on a scatter chart > o Get Excel to draw in trend lines for a variety of domain subsets - > 0->1, 0->2, 0->3, 0->3.9
> Guess what? There will *always* be an increasing trend line! Even when > the actual values associated with the _actual_ underlying function are > decreasing. Now, call y "temperature". There is always a "warming trend" > even when the actual temperature is _actually_ decreasing. See how easy > it is to be fooled by "statistics"? Go on... give it a try yourself.
> Easier still, why not just admit that you understand neither science nor > statistics. You have been conned... and so easily too.
CraigZ remains silent after having some rudimentary scientific/statistical facts demonstrated for him.
-- "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years. " -- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery - Australian Climate Commissar
Alan Morgan wrote: > In article <e5b0d128-cd13-442b-be52-b3cd9bdf2...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > CraigZ <craig.z.thomp...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 9, 3:00=A0pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> >> wrote:
>>> At least according to WMO and NASA, who cite 1998 as the warmest year eve= >> r, >>> and every year since then the same or cooler. >> A temperature trend is not calculated based on comparing any two >> years.
>> Your "understanding" is wrong.
> The tallest person who ever lived was born in 1918 and died in 1940. > Every person born since then has been shorter than this guy.
> Conclusion: The human race is getting shorter.
> Are you trying to tell me this logic is wrong?!?!?!?!?!?!!?
Only if telling you so would somehow support the "theory" of AGW.
-- "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years. " -- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery - Australian Climate Commissar
