Apology
AGW Facts
wagering about global warming; the same nuts who insist global
warming has not and is not happening also tend to insist evolution
did not and is not happening.
Stuart
We had a few deniers hanging around like a year or so ago.
Like creationists, they kept citing old or discredited literature.
Their modus operandi have much in common with creationists.
Stuart
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
If you're determined enough that way, you can also insist you didn't
lose the wager. So smart people don't want to play.
David Iain Greig
Except it's off topic and I don't want the cranks on a.g.w here.
--D.
--
david iain greig gr...@ediacara.org
moderator, talk.origins sp4 kox
http://www.ediacara.org/~greig arbor plena alouattarum
raven1
wrote:
Oh dear. You aren't familiar with the history of wagering on this
group, are you?
raven1
Or that you never made the bet. McWelcher, anyone?
Glenn
> AGW Facts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> > I thought many people in talk.origins would be interested in
> > wagering about global warming; the same nuts who insist global
> > warming has not and is not happening also tend to insist evolution
> > did not and is not happening.
>
> Except it's off topic and I don't want the cranks on a.g.w here.
>
inhabit agw.
iaoua iaoua
Hi,
I'm sorry to destroy your view of the world but I'm one of those notes
who believes that life came about as an act of divine creation, that
adaptation of species is observably happening and global warming is
also.
Where do I fit into to your black and white view of the world?
JC
alextangent
You mean, what is the colour of narcissism, since you think it's all
about where you fit?
(There was also a clue in the post that you really don't read for
comprehension, but for the greater glory of ioaua; "also tend to
insist" isn't black and white.)
John McKendry
As a non-black non-crow, you are confirmatory evidence of the
OP's statement.
John
Frank J
It depends. No one really doubts that global warming has been
occurring in the last century or so. What many people, but very few
of the scientists who actually study it, doubt is that human activity
is the main cause. Do you?
iaoua iaoua
I hold an MSc in High Performance Computing. I gained it as the first
year of a PhD project on brain surgery simulation. The MSc was an
essential part of training as my supervisor (in my opinion erringly)
believed it to be a problem requiring massive parallelisation due to
its 'high computational requirements'. But his opinion was largely due
to the fact that he was more interested in promoting XFEM (what he did
his PhD on) than in finding an optimal solution for the problem. In
any case, as part of this training worked on HECToR, the largest
academic supercomputer in Europe and had the privilege of learning
from the best in the field, employees at the EPCC. Perhaps one of the
most computationally expensive parallelisations ever written was the
one that proved the model that increased carbonisation of the
atmosphere is contributing to the problem of global warming.
Ironically, it was the government funded project that had the largest
carbon footprint of all time.
So, in summary, Yes. I do have good reason to believe that we are to
blame for it. If you intend to prove to me otherwise picking holes in
the maths of that simulation would be a good place to start.
alextangent
As XFEM and FleXFEM would have been clearly stated as the tools to be
used, it seems rather silly to take an MSc under such supervision if
that was your opinion.
> In
> any case, as part of this training worked on HECToR, the largest
> academic supercomputer in Europe and had the privilege of learning
> from the best in the field, employees at the EPCC. Perhaps one of the
> most computationally expensive parallelisations ever written was the
> one that proved the model that increased carbonisation of the
> atmosphere is contributing to the problem of global warming.
> Ironically, it was the government funded project that had the largest
> carbon footprint of all time.
>
> So, in summary, Yes. I do have good reason to believe that we are to
> blame for it. If you intend to prove to me otherwise picking holes in
> the maths of that simulation would be a good place to start.
Why don't you try (for a change) to explain the simulation model, the
data, the analysis and what it found? Or was that project run by
others, while you were running XFEM, and that your knowledge is
perhaps a little peripheral and limited to discussions with EPCC users
in the cafe?
Nashton
Perhaps you would like to have a few words with Lindzen.
Nashton
Arkalen
... You accept global warming because the models involved are
computationally expensive ? That's a pretty strange reason.
And I'm not sure what you mean with the maths of the simulation. The
uncertainties of climate models come more from which processes are
modelled and how less than the actual maths used.
Ray Martinez
You have misunderstood the main objection of those who oppose GW.
We do not deny GW----only its cause (man-made).
Ray
David Iain Greig
Arguably also a t.o regular, but I agree has not picked up on the
degree to which a.g.w is unwelcome here in the past.
--D.
Greg G.
The A in AGW stands for "Anthropogenic", which means "man-made".
In my experience, the religious deniers deny that it is caused by man
for religious reasons.
The deniers who deny AGW for political reasons seem to change what
they deny as the mood strikes them. On day, they deny that global
warming occurs, the next day, they admit that it occurs but deny that
man causes it, while the next day, it happens as a result of man but
the effects will be insignificant. It's pretty much "Gore said it, I
disbelieve it, that settles it."
Stuart
Lindzen, a meteorologist, had been discredited in the peer-reviewed
literature.
Where it counts.
Stuart
Robert Camp
> On 5/22/11 3:19 PM, Nashton wrote:
>
> > On 5/21/11 8:50 PM, AGW Facts wrote:
> >> I thought many people in talk.origins would be interested in
> >> wagering about global warming; the same nuts who insist global
> >> warming has not and is not happening also tend to insist evolution
> >> did not and is not happening.
>
> > Perhaps you would like to have a few words with Lindzen.
Lindzen says nothing in that video that addresses the comments to
which you replied.
Perhaps you should listen to his words before you post a link to
them.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McsZ1U20W0M
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/lindzen-in-newsweek/
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/richard-lindzen
http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/09/politicize-climate-science.html
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2008/09/lindzen-diatribe.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-by-point/
RLC
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> On May 22, 5:13 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 21, 4:50 pm, AGW Facts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > > I thought many people in talk.origins would be interested in
> > > wagering about global warming; the same nuts who insist global
> > > warming has not and is not happening also tend to insist evolution
> > > did not and is not happening.
>
> > You have misunderstood the main objection of those who oppose GW.
>
> > We do not deny GW----only its cause (man-made).
>
> > Ray
>
> The A in AGW stands for "Anthropogenic", which means "man-made".
>
> In my experience, the religious deniers deny that it is caused by man
> for religious reasons.
Surely it's been pointed out, possibly by me, that Christianity, at
least the fundamentalist kind, tells you that the entire world is
already damaged and made inhospitable by what humankind did in the
Garden of Eden, and so we jolly well can affect the environment.
Having said that, I think there are bible verses that implicitly
declare that the sea level cannot rise, in particular - although
clearly it does. (Every day, if you look at it that way. Bible
authors who didn't live near the sea may have not known that.)
alextangent
The world's largest tides are in the Bay of Fundy at 17 meters.
Interesting name.
pnyikos
The ones who deny AGW for purely scientific reasons (and they include
some respected meteorologists and climatiologists) are pretty
consistent about it. Their main theory is that it is changes in solar
output that really are at the back of most global warming, with
greenhouse gases having only a very slight influence. Look up, for
instance, the Wikipedia entry on the Maunder Minimum. It talks
about connections with the Little Ice Age.
Peter Nyikos
iaoua iaoua
You're not very good at reading for comprehension are you?
The note on the size of the carbon footprint was to the irony of the
exercise. The point of the exercise was to provide the government with
the evidence that the climate is changing as a result of our polluting
activities on this planet. The government funded such a project as
part of its plans to curb climate change. And yet this project of
government funded projects was the one with the largest carbon
footprint. Do you get how irony works? Do I need to explain it to you?
In response to questions in another post you made in this thread. The
MSc was not about FEM or its derivatives. It was about making
algorithms run fast by optimizing serial versions, by parallelising in
shared memory architecture, in distributed memory architectures and in
a mixture of both. It was the first year of a 4 government funded
project to produce a brain surgery simulation. Now, clearly, all the
EPSRC cares about is results. They clearly want research to lead to
progress. That's why they fund it. Progress in a project of this kind
can be measured quite easily. As a result of the project did a
technology arise which we can use to train our young brain surgeons so
they get lots of practice before working on a real brain, a very high
risk operation? If the answer is yes then this is progress. If the
simulation gives the same feeling as a real operation then this is
progress. If surgeons using the technology then make less mistakes in
the operating theatre as a result then this is progress.
What is quite clearly NOT progress is insisting that a technology that
could be run efficiently on a single processor consuming less
electricity and therefore having a much smaller footprint should be
implemented as inefficiently as possible and parallelising it and
making it run on 11,000 processors to get almost as accurate results
as the ones promised by the serial version not using XFEM thereby
ruining the environment more effectively for our children and for our
children's children.
Also, I'm guessing you have some contact with academics you should
also then be familiar with EPSRC policy. The student who won the grant
by merit of his academic excellence is control of his own research. He
is the one evaluating the problem NOT the supervisor and is therefore
perhaps the one best informed to make design decisions. My supervisors
problem was that he hired me because I was a computer scientist. He
wanted a computer scientist and that was exactly what he got. Computer
scientists shudder when they see poorly designed algorithms doing in
10 years what can be done in 10 seconds if you only think carefully
about the most efficient way of doing things.
Supercomputers were not invented as an excuse to pollute the
environment more effectively. They were invented because there
genuinely does exist a set of problems out there that require more
powerful resources. Brain surgery simulation is not one of them.
JC
Kermit
orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> On May 24, 3:20 am, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 22, 5:13 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 21, 4:50 pm, AGW Facts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > > > I thought many people in talk.origins would be interested in
> > > > wagering about global warming; the same nuts who insist global
> > > > warming has not and is not happening also tend to insist evolution
> > > > did not and is not happening.
>
> > > You have misunderstood the main objection of those who oppose GW.
>
> > > We do not deny GW----only its cause (man-made).
>
> > > Ray
>
> > The A in AGW stands for "Anthropogenic", which means "man-made".
>
> > In my experience, the religious deniers deny that it is caused by man
> > for religious reasons.
>
> Surely it's been pointed out, possibly by me, that Christianity, at
> least the fundamentalist kind, tells you that the entire world is
> already damaged and made inhospitable by what humankind did in the
> Garden of Eden, and so we jolly well can affect the environment.
I have heard many Fundamentalists say that we cannot significantly
affect God's creation - that would be claiming that we are stronger
than
Gawd, or something. Are you seriously saying that you expect Fundies
to look at the implications of one of their assertions and then
compare
it to another one of their claims?
>
> Having said that, I think there are bible verses that implicitly
> declare that the sea level cannot rise, in particular - although
> clearly it does. (Every day, if you look at it that way. Bible
> authors who didn't live near the sea may have not known that.)
They knew enough to know that cap and trade is a socialistic idea.
Kermit
Kermit
> On May 23, 10:20 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 22, 5:13 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 21, 4:50 pm, AGW Facts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > > > I thought many people in talk.origins would be interested in
> > > > wagering about global warming; the same nuts who insist global
> > > > warming has not and is not happening also tend to insist evolution
> > > > did not and is not happening.
>
> > > You have misunderstood the main objection of those who oppose GW.
>
> > > We do not deny GW----only its cause (man-made).
>
> > > Ray
>
> > The A in AGW stands for "Anthropogenic", which means "man-made".
>
> > In my experience, the religious deniers deny that it is caused by man
> > for religious reasons.
>
> > The deniers who deny AGW for political reasons seem to change what
> > they deny as the mood strikes them. On day, they deny that global
> > warming occurs, the next day, they admit that it occurs but deny that
> > man causes it, while the next day, it happens as a result of man but
> > the effects will be insignificant. It's pretty much "Gore said it, I
> > disbelieve it, that settles it."
>
> The ones who deny AGW for purely scientific reasons (and they include
> some respected meteorologists and climatiologists) are pretty
> consistent about it.
Correct. They keep repeating the same refuted claims.
> Their main theory is that it is changes in solar
> output that really are at the back of most global warming, with
> greenhouse gases having only a very slight influence. Look up, for
> instance, the Wikipedia entry on the Maunder Minimum. It talks
> about connections with the Little Ice Age.
>
> Peter Nyikos
The effects are dwarfed by human-emitted CO2.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
Solar activity has been decreasing for 35 years - while GW has been
picking up speed:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
At its current rate, about 7 years of CO2 emissions would counter a
full Maunder Minimum.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/2010-record-warmth-weird-weather.html
Sorry; GW is anthropogenic. Left to its own devices, Earth would be re-
entering an ice age.
Kermit
Arkalen
Talk about projection. I have no idea what the following has to do with
my post (unless you're saying that your whole comment had been a joke
not to be taken seriously, in which case, what's new ?), but then you
talk about my "other post in this thread", which, what ?
AGW Facts
<dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
> Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On May 21, 8:19?pm, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
> >> AGW Facts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> >> > I thought many people in talk.origins would be interested in
> >> > wagering about global warming; the same nuts who insist global
> >> > warming has not and is not happening also tend to insist evolution
> >> > did not and is not happening.
> >> Except it's off topic and I don't want the cranks on a.g.w here.
> > The poster is most likely Desertphile, and is one of the cranks that
> > inhabit agw.
By "cranks" nutter Glenn means "educated and informed." I see this
is anti-science web sites and forums all the time.
AGW Facts
<ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 22, 5:13 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 21, 4:50 pm, AGW Facts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I thought many people in talk.origins would be interested in
> > > wagering about global warming; the same nuts who insist global
> > > warming has not and is not happening also tend to insist evolution
> > > did not and is not happening.
> > You have misunderstood the main objection of those who oppose GW.
All of the experts oppose global warming, and anthropogenic global
warming. Any one who does not oppose global warming is probably a
homicidal sociopath.
> > We do not deny GW----only its cause (man-made).
You mean you deny an observed fact.
> The A in AGW stands for "Anthropogenic", which means "man-made".
>
> In my experience, the religious deniers deny that it is caused by man
> for religious reasons.
>
> The deniers who deny AGW for political reasons seem to change what
> they deny as the mood strikes them. On day, they deny that global
> warming occurs, the next day, they admit that it occurs but deny that
> man causes it, while the next day, it happens as a result of man but
> the effects will be insignificant. It's pretty much "Gore said it, I
> disbelieve it, that settles it."
Eventually some of these nutters will insist the Holy Bible
predicted anthropogenic global warming. Seriously, I will even bet
money on it.
AGW Facts
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On May 23, 10:20 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 22, 5:13 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On May 21, 4:50 pm, AGW Facts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > I thought many people in talk.origins would be interested in
> > > > wagering about global warming; the same nuts who insist global
> > > > warming has not and is not happening also tend to insist evolution
> > > > did not and is not happening.
> >
> > > You have misunderstood the main objection of those who oppose GW.
> >
> > > We do not deny GW----only its cause (man-made).
> >
> > > Ray
> >
> > The A in AGW stands for "Anthropogenic", which means "man-made".
> >
> > In my experience, the religious deniers deny that it is caused by man
> > for religious reasons.
> >
> > The deniers who deny AGW for political reasons seem to change what
> > they deny as the mood strikes them. On day, they deny that global
> > warming occurs, the next day, they admit that it occurs but deny that
> > man causes it, while the next day, it happens as a result of man but
> > the effects will be insignificant. It's pretty much "Gore said it, I
> > disbelieve it, that settles it."
> The ones who deny AGW for purely scientific reasons (and they include
> some respected meteorologists and climatiologists)
There are no climatologists that reject AGW on purely scientific
reasons.
> are pretty
> consistent about it. Their main theory is that it is changes in solar
> output that really are at the back of most global warming, with
Yes: that is wrong. The current unprecedented global temperature
anomaly cannot be explain by solar variability.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif
Solar irradiance data:
http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/data/tsi_1611.txt
ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data/irradiance/composite/DataPlots/composite_d41_62_1009.dat
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data/six_hourly/sorce_tsi_L3_c06h_latest.txt
Global temperature data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
> greenhouse gases having only a very slight influence.
Yes: that is wrong.
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
http://globalchange.mit.edu/pubs/abstract.php?publication_id=990
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039628.shtml
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/jmgregory0201.pdf
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/probrevised.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL042314.shtml
http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/solar-jgr.pdf
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/abs/ngeo578.html
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004JD005557.shtml
http://homepages.see.leeds.ac.uk/%7Eearpmf/papers/ForsterandGregory2006.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042911.shtml
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_etal.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL043051.shtml
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/%7Estefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm
> Look up, for
> instance, the Wikipedia entry on the Maunder Minimum. It talks
> about connections with the Little Ice Age.
Not applicable.
> Peter Nyikos
AGW Facts
Exactly like Creationists, and for exactly the same reasons. If
you have not yet done so you might want to view George Marshall's
YouTube videos on the subject of the psychology of denying AGW and
even GW. The channel is "climategeorge" and the series is titled
"The Ingenious Ways We Avoid Believing in Climate Change."
He studied climate change denialism from a psychology point of
view. It matches Creationists' behavior precisely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOsl5-AUTv4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Da1zW3dG_ko
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb5Zu_YGxjw
> > Their main theory is that it is changes in solar
> > output that really are at the back of most global warming, with
> > greenhouse gases having only a very slight influence. Look up, for
> > instance, the Wikipedia entry on the Maunder Minimum. It talks
> > about connections with the Little Ice Age.
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> The effects are dwarfed by human-emitted CO2.
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
>
> Solar activity has been decreasing for 35 years - while GW has been
> picking up speed:
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
>
> At its current rate, about 7 years of CO2 emissions would counter a
> full Maunder Minimum.
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/2010-record-warmth-weird-weather.html
>
> Sorry; GW is anthropogenic. Left to its own devices, Earth would be re-
> entering an ice age.
From 60% to 80% of the current warming anomaly has been caused by
humans:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-3.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley.html
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/gcmoutput/crowley2000/forc-total-4_12_01.txt
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/climate-scientist-benjamin-santer.html
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/Just_5_Questions_Fingerprinting_the_climate_20100322.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/humanfingerprintshighres.pdf
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/climates_strong_fingerprint_in_global_cholera_outbreaks_/2371/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100210172225.htm
> Kermit
AGW Facts
In fact Lindzen's peer at MIT told Lindzen and Choi that the paper
was grossly wrong and that they got black body radiation physics
wrong (among other problems)..... =BEFORE= the paper was sent for
peer-review. When it was finally published, the editor included a
note pointing to the wrong parts.
Fuck that must have stung a bit. But Lindzen was paid $10,000 for
the paper:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/11/science-lindzen-debunked-again-positive-negative-feedbacks-clouds-tropics/
http://climateprogress.org/2010/04/24/re-discredited-climate-denialists-in-denial/
http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/24/science-deniers-lindzen-clouds-amplifying-positive-feedback-not-negative/
http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/is_richard_s_lindzen_deliberately_lying_or_just_deluded
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/reports/skeptics.html
> Stuart