Climate Change!

[Nabobalis]

If we have the capabilities to control the weather, how can we even be arguing about whether there is climate change or not? Laws and treaties with other countries were established about not modifying the weather for war purposes years ago. We did not make laws for cars before there were cars. We did not make laws about controlling the weather before we could control it. The Haarp project and all the patents and evergreen aviation, cloud seeding etc... Why aren't the scientists mentioning any of these? This ain't no conspiracy theory, research it. Maybe us blowing up nuclear and hydrogen bombs in the atmosphere with out knowing the results didn't help either. It makes for flawed science.

HAARP doesn't control the weather, stop with these conspiracy theories. Cloud seeding works on small scales and generally just stops it getting cloudy, e.g the Chinese at the last Olympics.

They didn't explode the nukes to see what effect they have on the atmosphere, they were tests of strength.

 

[RickG]

Global Average SST Update to October 14 « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

The temperature is staying the same and even gradually going down. Yet CO2 is still going up steady. This says to the science that the theory of AGW is wrong.

Spencer is doing the same thing as I demonstrated in the graph. He cherry picked a beginning and ending date. Pick two other dates and it goes up. As I said before, you have to look at all the data. The definition of climate is the average of weather over a 30 year period or more. Look at GATs from that perspective and the temp is going up. You can't define climate to suit you own ideas, and I didn't pick the year 1980. The graph begins with 1880 where global instrumental records are available.

And for a clearer prespective look at a much longer period, say the past 2000 years.

Moberg et al. (2005)

 

[farmer joe]

HAARP doesn't control the weather, stop with these conspiracy theories. Cloud seeding works on small scales and generally just stops it getting cloudy, e.g the Chinese at the last Olympics.

Why did we pass laws stating we would not use weather modification (control) for war purposes. We just make laws and treaties for the hell of it? Perhaps some research is in order on your part before you go telling others how wrong they are. Do you think they would tell you that they can. So, because they haven't told you that they have the capabilites , anyone that says they do is a conspiricy theorist. Is this how your science works?

They didn't explode the nukes to see what effect they have on the atmosphere, they were tests of strength.

Without the knowledge of the long term consequences or what it might do to the atmosphere. Science at its best.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Global Average SST Update to October 14 « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

The temperature is staying the same and even gradually going down. Yet CO2 is still going up steady. This says to the science that the theory of AGW is wrong.

How does it say it is "wrong"? Remember the graph that RickG posted and that I re-posted.

ALSO: you say 'even gradually going down', well, the graph that Spencer posts he clearly states that he put the linear trend on it "for entertainment purposes only".

Here's why this makes a difference: When graphing "time series analyses" (or any set of data for that matter), it is very important to know what the confidence interval on the fit of the line is.

It is possible that what appears to be a "negative slope" is actually statistically indifferentiable from a "zero slope". That's why the only meaningful discussion of that would be if he included the confidence interval on the fit in the discussion to test if it was a "zero slope" (flat) or a non-zero slope.

This is even more complicated when you have a time-series that shows some degree of autocorrelation in the errors, but he did plot an 11-moth running average presumably in an attempt to smooth the data out.

So, just remember, there's a lot more "unsaid" than "said" by that graph and unless you can provide the requisite statistical analyses of the trend you really can't say "gradually going down".

 

[thaumaturgy]

Pretty good, make that yourself? Doesn't look anything like a hockey stick to me. Look real close...

Ummmm, you do realize that when one talks about the hockey stick it requires more time than just the last 40 years to see it, right?

The hockey stick is the hockey stick because it goes back more than just 1973 to show the "handle" of the hockey stick.

Really, do try to get informed on the topic at hand.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Here is Mr. Hockey stick.

• "Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon

Let me clarify something for from the standpoint of one who has some experience in earth's geologic history:


The earth has been warmer and cooler long before man came along. The mechanisms in those cases were largely natural (the MWP, while perhaps localized to Northern Europe may have had a tiny component related to human activity in relation to land usage), but by and large we know there are many NATURAL forcings which can drive climate.


THAT DOESN'T MEAN HUMANS CANNOT BE ONE.


In the last 150 years we've been able to shift the isotopic composition of the atmospheric carbon in just about the exact manner expected from the burning of fossil fuels and vegetal based fuels. We've shifted the carbon to contain more 12-C isotope just as one would expect. Before the atmosphere was contaminated with excess 14-C from atmospheric testing of nuclear bombs in the 60's, we also saw a steady decrease in atmospheric 14-C which is exactly as expected from burning 14-C depleted fossil fuels.


So humanity has been able to change the atmosphere to reflect our burning of fossil fuels, pumping gigatons of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere and we somehow can't possibly be responsible for a warming?


Here's a logic puzzle:


1. Gunshots to the head often result in death.
2. Bob is dead.
3. Ergo Bob was shot in the head.


Does that seem logically "sound" to you? The ONLY reason Bob could be dead is due to a gunshot to the head?


The same is true for climate. There are a number of possible forcings that are natural and a few that are anthropogenic. Why does something that happened at a different time mean that what is going on currently can't be due to anthropogenic factors?

Now that it is all out in the open. After being called conspriocists, and anti-science, and global warming deniers, your skewing the data now by saying it did go down but it is really up. Nice.​

So you didn't see the upward overall trend?

I'm curious: when you walk up stairs do you stop on each step and say: "because this step is flat I cannot be moving upwards!"

Just curious.
​

Still no shortage of those still crying "deniers, climate terrorists, climate racists" the sky is still falling we just can't prove it.

Ummm, you'll note that I don't use those terms.

 

[Nabobalis]

Why did we pass laws stating we would not use weather modification (control) for war purposes. We just make laws and treaties for the hell of it? Perhaps some research is in order on your part before you go telling others how wrong they are. Do you think they would tell you that they can. So, because they haven't told you that they have the capabilites , anyone that says they do is a conspiricy theorist. Is this how your science works?

Laws are also made to prevent hypothetical but possible scenarios. Many of the laws regarding stem cells and the like are an example. But I would like a source for those laws you mention.

You have no evidence, none. You can not claim to know what is going on with any certainty. HAARP isn't some conspiracy, there are plans to make something much similar and bigger in scope in the arctic circle within the next 10 years.

Without the knowledge of the long term consequences or what it might do to the atmosphere. Science at its best.

Those tests were done for one reason, to show off. The countries in the cold war wanted to show the other countries how powerful and how fast they were improving nuke strength. This wasn't science, but geopolitics.

 

[Greatcloud]

For AGW to be true the temperature and CO2 are both supposed to go up and are supposed to correlate this only occured for a short time in the 90's and now the temperature is static and gradually going down.

Global Average SST Update to October 14 « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

 

[RickG]

For AGW to be true the temperature and CO2 are both supposed to go up and are supposed to correlate this only occured for a short time in the 90's and now the temperature is static and gradually going down.

Global Average SST Update to October 14 « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Did you overlook my previous post #142 concerning Spencer? CO2 and temperature rise correlate extremely well.

Also the past decade, 2000-2009 was the warmest on record and June 2009 - May 2010 was the warmest 12 month period "ever" on instrumental record.

 

[idscience]

Ummmm, you do realize that when one talks about the hockey stick it requires more time than just the last 40 years to see it, right?

The hockey stick is the hockey stick because it goes back more than just 1973 to show the "handle" of the hockey stick.

Really, do try to get informed on the topic at hand.

What hockey stick? the faker that built is admitted he fudged the data. Your still arguing for it? You are commited, or should be.

 

[idscience]

Seems to be some conflicting charts here. This one shows a decrease in temp with rise in Co2. Unlike the chart in the past post where it seems to correlate exactly? hmmm?
Also an overall decrease in temp over past 100 years.

 

[Farinata]

Seems to be some conflicting charts here. This one shows a decrease in temp with rise in Co2. Unlike the chart in the past post where it seems to correlate exactly? hmmm?
Also an overall decrease in temp over past 100 years.

Just a friendly reminder that sources are always appreciated when posting what purports to be scientific data.

 

[idscience]

Just a friendly reminder that sources are always appreciated when posting what purports to be scientific data.

Agreed, it was are post of an earlier post that was not commented on so I posted it again. I believe if you look close on the right hand side of the graph, the sources are listed.

Where are you on the ID/evolution thead? no one posting sources there. Don't here anyone mentioning that. I miss one and someone is on me.

 

[thaumaturgy]

What hockey stick? the faker that built is admitted he fudged the data. Your still arguing for it? You are commited, or should be.

Would you care to show me where this "admission" occurred?

 

[Farinata]

Agreed, it was are post of an earlier post that was not commented on so I posted it again. I believe if you look close on the right hand side of the graph, the sources are listed.

Where are you on the ID/evolution thead? no one posting sources there. Don't here anyone mentioning that. I miss one and someone is on me.

My apologies. I didn't quite want to read through 16 pages of prior discussion so I'm somewhat to blame there. I did initially try to look up the source but all I could find was this website:

C3: Last 100 Years of CO2 & Temperatures: The IPCC's HadCRUT Data Confirms CO2's Small Impact On Global Warming

I wasn't able to locate any peer reviewed studies that featured the above graph and was just interested where you got it from.

 

[idscience]

My apologies. I didn't quite want to read through 16 pages of prior discussion so I'm somewhat to blame there. I did initially try to look up the source but all I could find was this website:

C3: Last 100 Years of CO2 & Temperatures: The IPCC's HadCRUT Data Confirms CO2's Small Impact On Global Warming

I wasn't able to locate any peer reviewed studies that featured the above graph and was just interested where you got it from.

go back and read all the posts

 

[Nabobalis]

Would you care to show me where this "admission" occurred?

Also, there has been about 10+ independent groups who have come up with the hockey graph themselves.

 

[idscience]

Also, there has been about 10+ independent groups who have come up with the hockey graph themselves.

sure, and they all had computer programmers coding models that are not corrupted.

The HOCKEY stick is dead, long live the hockey stick.

 

[idscience]

My apologies. I didn't quite want to read through 16 pages of prior discussion so I'm somewhat to blame there. I did initially try to look up the source but all I could find was this website:

C3: Last 100 Years of CO2 & Temperatures: The IPCC's HadCRUT Data Confirms CO2's Small Impact On Global Warming

I wasn't able to locate any peer reviewed studies that featured the above graph and was just interested where you got it from.

its only a page or two back post #140 http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/01/...onfirms-that-ipccs-global-warming-is-doa.html

 

[CaliforniaSun]

As thamaturgy pointed out, there are many reasons for climate change, humans being just one. The question then, is who is so naive as to think humans could not be a factor in GW?