Kyoto Protocol

[joeblast]

It's probably just one of those low-key need to know basis things.

 

yup, "and the world doesnt need to know what we're doing" - but we of course expect you to foot the bill and limit the growth of your country!

Edited December 14, 2011 by joeblast

[ralis]

Joe's comments are nothing more than cut and paste diatribes, replete with right wing talking points which are fed daily from his handlers.

 

If he and his operatives are allowed to continue with their radical agenda, this country will return to the "dark ages". Why? The "dark ages" were followed by the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment in which science evolved as well as reason. Progress in areas of science, education, understanding complex systems such as the biosphere and human impact on such, are seen as a threat to neoliberal agendas.

 

Neoliberalism is nothing but a guise to allow for massive exploitation of natural resources, elimination of child labor laws, destruction of the environment, elimination of the educational system and a return to the "gilded age" and prior to that. Further, the U.S. will witness a return to an oligarchy and an impoverished working class. What usually arises out of an economic collapse such as this is a possible dictatorship. History is right on this account!

[joeblast]

Keep flogging that dead horse, ralis Its not going to get back up.

 

How about this, why dont you actually go back and read Tisdale's deconstruction of the models and where they go wrong, and you tell me what you think is incorrect about the assertions contained therein. Please be specific - if you can!

 

 

 

(Because if you actually read it, or more than the first paragraph, I never would have received the reply of "yeah I read it, he cherry picked all his data")

[joeblast]

[Informer]

[ralis]

Here's a start - a good look at the three main oceanic phenomena that help move warmness around. The three are (1) El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which is typically expressed as El Niño and La Niña events, (2) Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and (3) Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).

 

 

 

Again, if you're truly interested in the science, these are excellent links - Intro to ENSO, AMO & PDO.

http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/an-introduction-to-enso-amo-and-pdo-%E2%80%93-part-1/

 

http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/an-introduction-to-enso-amo-and-pdo-part-2/

 

Part 1 is the basics and part 2 is where he starts pointing out methodological flaws in presentations you see at places like "real"climate. AGW proponents already had their mind made up by the time any significant study was done on things like the AMO!

 

 

 

And one other excellent point I saw made recently was regarding the multi-modal nature of CO2 sensitivity - in a nutshell, the IPCC et al have never presented such a paradigm, their focus on climate sensitivity is always of a single mode (with an artificially "fat tail" that erroneously suggests sensitivities as high as 3 degrees or more are likely, much less possible.)

 

Consider the difference in atmospheric CO2 sensitivity of...the ocean, vs land. Or, in very dry places where the water vapor % drops significantly, and other very wet places.

 

"According to the basic tenets of System Science, probability distributions that inadvertently mix multiple populations often lead to un-reliable conclusions."

 

 

and that's what these models have been giving us - unreliable conclusions!

 

The apt analogy,

Say we graphed the heights of a group of infants and their mothers. We’d get a peak at, say 25″, representing the average height of the infants, and another at, say 65″, representing the mothers. The mean of that multi-modal distribution, 45″, would represent neither the mothers nor the infants – not a single baby nor mother would be 45″ tall!

 

That's why statistics easily encompasses values well past "damned lies."

 

Cut and paste arguments again? Will not work here! Further, Glickstein has no Ph.D in climate science and neither do you! Reminds me of geocentricism which was religious ideology during the time of Galileo Galilei in which the church investigated Galileo by inquisition. Given the corporate funding against climate science, coupled with propagandists such as Limbaugh et al, political hacks such as Sen. Inhofe, the witch hunt that you so love to engage in does feel like a rebirth of the inquisition against science.

 

 

Honestly, you show your disdain for the scientific process by repeatedly attacking complex climate problems. Further, it is evident that you have neither the educational wherewithal or even the intellectual curiosity to explore complex subject matter. Critical thinking? Why not read real books that may further your education? Of course I doubt you will given that you are 35 years old and know it all.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Inquisition-Climate-Science-ebook/dp/B005FLRAW0/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1324488619&sr=8-3

 

http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Atmospheric-Science-John-Frederick/dp/0763740896/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1324488619&sr=8-1

Edited December 21, 2011 by ralis

[joeblast]

did you watch all of that and not have serious reservations about the speaker's own comprehension?

 

firstly, there is a significant difference between the statements of

 

-"CO2 is not the main driver of climate"

and

-"there is no correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration."

 

to make such an equivalence is putting words in Monckton's mouth. does that bit of misinformative twist bother you?

 

.

the heater analogy is rather contrived cleverness - the big thing they leave out is that CO2 lags temperature by quite a significant margin - you have to zoom out to most of the world's history to make them appear lockstep as Gore did in his Inconvenient pack of lies. The point is only made in a specific interpretation of a specific sentence: loose correlation is the charge, to which its responded with the erroneous heater analogy, claiming that there's simply different time variation. Well, yes, there is time variation, but that still doesnt get you past the fact that temperature changes drive the variation in CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around. If CO2 drives temperature change, why when one looks closely at the record it is shown that the temperature change comes first and then the solubility of CO2 responds in kind? I see this point routinely ignored when it is plain as day the data is right there.

 

So basically, by misrepresenting what the statement was in the first place, he doesnt even have to prove monckton wrong, because it is a fallacy from the get go - he's proving himself wrong in the process for starting out with a mistaken premise and then "disproving" that.

 

 

 

oh I love this one ROFL

"not understanding the sun's weakness leads monkton to all sort of erroneous conclusions"

 

it is an absolute fallacy to assume a linear increase over time of the sun's output.

 

I find it pretty laughable that the speaker asserts that the only thing that got us out of a "snaowball earth" was volcanic eruptions making the atmosphere "more greenhousey" - forget about all of the other effects of volcanism or the albedo changes. Or the variation in solar output, of which we only have sparse data going back very far.

 

In fact the opposite is true - a runaway amount of CO2 will serve to cool the planet*! How can one assert that...

 

given we know the specific heat of water vapor is at least double that of co2,

and there's a very significant difference in the percentages of the two in the atmosphere,

 

how can one honestly state that driving the one with lower specific heat up and there being less of the one with more specific heat,

 

Will lead to warming???

 

In a pig's eye!

 

 

(*=of course its not a simple function as it will have different results for different situations, I am referring to where we are right from present. "runaway CO2" aint gonna do what yall are told by the grant-writers.)

 

 

the house would be a better analogy if you stuffed it with rambunctious children

Edited December 21, 2011 by joeblast

[joeblast]

Cut and paste arguments again? Will not work here! Further, Glickstein has no Ph.D in climate science and neither do you! Reminds me of geocentricism which was religious ideology during the time of Galileo Galilei in which the church investigated Galileo by inquisition. Given the corporate funding against climate science, coupled with propagandists such as Limbaugh et al, political hacks such as Sen. Inhofe, the witch hunt that you so love to engage in does feel like a rebirth of the inquisition against science.

 

 

Honestly, you show your disdain for the scientific process by repeatedly attacking complex climate problems. Further, it is evident that you have neither the educational wherewithal or even the intellectual curiosity to explore complex subject matter. Critical thinking? Why not read real books that may further your education? Of course I doubt you will given that you are 35 years old and know it all.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Inquisition-Climate-Science-ebook/dp/B005FLRAW0/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1324488619&sr=8-3

 

http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Atmospheric-Science-John-Frederick/dp/0763740896/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1324488619&sr=8-1

hm, cut and paste a scientific argument, or simply respond with ad hominem attacks and claims of "its all big oil's fault."

 

as I've said, please do follow the money! who's been inputting more into "climate science"? you cant simply point at the "profits of the oil companies" (as if it isnt largely doled out to shareholders and investors after the taxes and such are paid!) and immediately jump to the conclusion...

 

oh, wait. looky what you subscribe to. I guess some people can simply ignore the meat of an issue and decide! (albeit in an uninformed and most sheeple-ish way.)

 

are you going to put forth an argument or what???

[Informer]

It was shown that any data that doesn't show the correlation is somehow compromised, continued observance of this phenomena should have been written to law by now.

 

What is the incoherent babble such as "temperature changes drive the variation in CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around." Have do do with our adding to the variable and the impact it has? Positive feedback would beg to differ the relevance of the question.

[joeblast]

heh, what was the quote from a segal movie,

 

"assumption is the mother of all fkups"

 

these guys have their feedbacks all screwy!

 

correlation is not causation

[ralis]

hm, cut and paste a scientific argument, or simply respond with ad hominem attacks and claims of "its all big oil's fault."

 

as I've said, please do follow the money! who's been inputting more into "climate science"? you cant simply point at the "profits of the oil companies" (as if it isnt largely doled out to shareholders and investors after the taxes and such are paid!) and immediately jump to the conclusion...

 

oh, wait. looky what you subscribe to. I guess some people can simply ignore the meat of an issue and decide! (albeit in an uninformed and most sheeple-ish way.)

 

are you going to put forth an argument or what???

 

Obviously, you don't know the difference between real science and the arguments you present. My degree is in a scientific field and I know how to read a scientific paper. Further, I understand how to apply critical thinking skills and therefor am able to think through to a set of logical conclusions. However, you do not!

 

My ally is science together with the facts substantiating global warming and the thousands of research scientists that have worked for decades on this critical matter! Therefor, I refuse to debate with one who has no substantial evidence to present and only uses cherry picked data presented by agenda driven dilettante's. The arguments of Tisdale et al, have been thoroughly refuted.

 

BTW, your weak defense of claiming ad hominem attacks as a way to debate is a weak tactic.

 

Your participation in this debate is irrelevant Joe! Honestly, I do not believe you have read the real science on global warming but have relied on the denier crowd.

[joeblast]

So in other words, no, you dont have an argument, you have a posture of one, and are loathe to articulate it because you dont really have as much of a foundation as you claim to. If you understood, you could articulate. You cant even provide a debunking of Tisdale's work.

 

But instead, no contrary argument or facts are acceptable if they do not support the AGW orthodoxy!

 

 

 

That's what I'm getting from you. Back on ignore you go.

[Informer]

So in other words, no, you dont have an argument, you have a posture of one, and are loathe to articulate it because you dont really have as much of a foundation as you claim to. If you understood, you could articulate. You cant even provide a debunking of Tisdale's work.

 

But instead, no contrary argument or facts are acceptable if they do not support the AGW orthodoxy!

 

 

 

That's what I'm getting from you. Back on ignore you go.

 

[ralis]

So in other words, no, you dont have an argument, you have a posture of one, and are loathe to articulate it because you dont really have as much of a foundation as you claim to. If you understood, you could articulate. You cant even provide a debunking of Tisdale's work.

 

But instead, no contrary argument or facts are acceptable if they do not support the AGW orthodoxy!

 

 

 

That's what I'm getting from you. Back on ignore you go.

 

My argument contains the facts accumulated by the scientists who presented the concrete evidence on global warming.

 

If you have irrefutable evidence, then why haven't you presented your work for peer review? Proper scientific protocol.

Edited December 21, 2011 by ralis

[joeblast]

My statement still stands - you hide and demagogue and refuse to put forth an argument and can only insult and disparage those with whom you disagree. I could see the disparagement if you could actually craft some semblance of an argument, but you cant even do that! What do you disagree with? "Climate science" has produced more contortions than that chick I saw on the Cirque du Soliel DVD who put her ass on top of her head and then walked a circle without moving her chin!

 

Let's be honest, neither you or I are "climate scientists," statisticians, physicists, geologists, what have you...and have no context for submitting work to be peer reviewed. So why you feel the need to hide behind that just betrays the ideological sand dune upon which the basis of your opinions are formed. We are each looking at facets supplied by the communities, we each derive our understandings from that. Whereas I am pointing out specific things that are incorrect and blatant assumptions, you are doing no such thing regarding work that you disagree with. All you are doing is name calling - in other words, you are wasting your time, my time, everyone's time that reads this thread, and you are wasting the bandwith necessary to transmit the information.

 

Its why the global warming thread for joeblast is basically dead, because I went there, played a hand or three, and when the call came for the cards, all you had was "I dont like the deck of cards you're using." Not much of an argument. You cant even articulate why you believe in AGW aside from pointing at the degrees and supercomputers of climate crusaders - everything they say is incontrovertible fact and you'd best not question it!!! In other words, you support the continued abuse and bastardization of science - clothed in the papal robes of the grant writers who need those grants to keep coming if they are to keep playing in theoretical-land!

[Informer]

Blah blah blah.

 

 

"A coupled climate and carbon (CO2) cycle model is used to investigate the global climate and carbon cycle changes out to the year 2300 that would occur if CO2 emissions from all the currently estimated fossil fuel resources were released to the atmosphere. By the year 2300, the global climate warms by about 8 K and atmospheric CO2 reaches 1423 ppmv. The warming is higher than anticipated because the sensitivity to radiative forcing increases as the simulation progresses. In this simulation, the rate of emissions peaks at over 30 Pg C yr^sup -1^ early in the twenty-second century. Even at the year 2300, nearly 50% of cumulative emissions remain in the atmosphere. Both soils and living biomass are net carbon sinks throughout the simulation. Despite having relatively low climate sensitivity and strong carbon uptake by the land biosphere, these model projections suggest severe long-term consequences for global climate if all the fossil fuel carbon is ultimately released into the atmosphere."

 

"The recent modeling studies suggest that carbon cycle consequences of global warming are likely to amplify the effect of CO2 emissions, because increased respiration rates at higher temperatures would induce carbon loss from the land biosphere to the atmosphere. These models have not been used previously to study the multicentury impact of large-scale fossil fuel emissions on climate and the carbon cycle out to the year 2300."

 

Bala, G., Caldeira, K., Mirin, A., Wickett, M., Delire, C.. "Multicentury Changes to the Global Climate and Carbon Cycle: Results from a Coupled Climate and Carbon Cycle Model." Journal of Climate 21(2005):4531. eLibrary. Web. 21 Dec. 2011.

[joeblast]

[joeblast]

oh, and how much money has Hansen made in the last 5-10 years going around and giving alarmist speeches?

 

hmm...well, not quite the $100 million that Gore has, but it is no small amount. I'd love to get up at a podium and go on a tirade for 5, 6 figures.

[Informer]

Your statements have nothing to do with your previous assertion, in regards to denying there is a problem with continued carbon emissions. Any data-base you look at makes it pretty obvious that our emmissions do effect the future of the planet, regardless of which model is used. If you can't produce a source to further your initial claim, then I think we are done.

 

You can argue against data of a scientist that I didn't produce, all day if you want, but that doesn't discredit the source I produced. The above post does not aid your argument in anyway, therefore is seemingly irrelevant.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Informer

[ralis]

and you believe these wild, preposterous predictions? This is exactly what I have been railing against - these guys have their coefficients screwed up!

 

To put it simply, CO2 sensitivity is a somewhat localized logarithmic function that varies depending on where you look. That is one large reason why it has been so tough for people to pin down what "the sensitivity" is, because its not just a single bump on a graph that can be applied anywhere on earth, its a jumble of them.

 

Let's take my favorite pseudo-scientist, James Hansen. I corresponded with him for a bit back in 2003 or so, and my initial question to him was why, in all of the papers I saw written by him, was I not seeing any mention of the sun? The reply I received referenced a single paper of his that considered TSI (total solar irradiance, as if that is a comprehensive representation of the totality of the sun's effects - which it is NOT, even though the models treat it as such,) and once having mentioned the paper he went blathering on over half a dozen emails telling me how his calculations clearly showed that while the sun was big and bright and all, human effects had well taken over as the primary climate driver! And he was 100% convinced of this, despite the flaws in his methodologies, which were cast aside as relatively minor uncertainties.

 

Well, the uncertainties are anything but minor.

 

Let me ask you guys a question: Does this look honest? (from a paper of Hansen's)

 

 

 

In other words, he's already got the sensitivity nailed! And any deviations from it simply have corrections introduced to bring the end result closer to the desired result.

 

And besides, Loeb et al also made uncouth modifications in what Hansen was referencing there,

 

 

 

hm....well, reality isnt coinciding with our model, so we'd better introduce a restraint on it so that the values dont get too far out of whack!

 

To continue, Hansen's .85 is the sensitivity from his GISS model - which, as time progresses, we have been seeing significant deviations from other measurements, and then you see doozies like this one here where he employs statistical trickery to make something appear far worse than it really is. Have a look at the bottom - data - and the top - after Hansen's "smoothing" - do you think they supposedly represent the exact same data??? To Hansen, they do. This right here is what I refer to when I say things like the bastardization of science - hmmm....welp, I dont really have much data at all for the poles, so let me just change the "sample size" so that my whole graphical representation widens out to include the poles - and look, it helps "the cause" because it *clearly* shows the poles are hot as hell!!! /sarc

 

 

I suppose what I'll have to do is just keep pointing out instance after instance of failure after failure, and we'll see who's "cherry picking" data.

 

To pick one point and in this case the sun, then proceed from an incorrect conclusion is your problem. Why? What you have done is isolate one variable from a complex set of variables and reach erroneous conclusions based on one dynamic i.e, the sun. Then when you fail to hear what you want to hear from Dr. James Hansen you whine and accuse him of engaging in pseudoscience. In any non linear dynamic system, all variables interact with all other variables.

 

What you and your ilk are doing is engaging in anti-intellectualism and an anti-scientific inquisition. Therefor, the responsibility for delaying much needed R&D and implementation of new sustainable energy sources falls directly on your rabid denier crowd. The deniers as far as I have observed, are composed of single minded angry control freaks.

 

 

Further, your participation on this forum is suspect! E.g. you have referred to the U.S. as "my country" and anyone disagreeing with your ideology should get out. Some might construe that as bigotry. What gives you the right to determine that only your ideological group owns the U.S. If you are still viewing yourself as a separate individual, then you know very little as to what the Tao really teaches.

[ralis]

Your statements have nothing to do with your previous assertion, in regards to denying there is a problem with continued carbon emissions. Any data-base you look at makes it pretty obvious that our emmissions do effect the future of the planet, regardless of which model is used. If you can't produce a source to further your initial claim, then I think we are done.

 

You can argue against data of a scientist that I didn't produce, all day if you want, but that doesn't discredit the source I produced. The above post does not aid your argument in anyway, therefore is seemingly irrelevant.

 

He obtains most of his info. from a former TV weatherman (Anthony Watts) who has no credentials whatsoever. Most of what he posts are Republican talking points and erroneous info. from Watts site.

[Informer]

I don't see in what universe one opinion would outweigh the objective data of many, nor would I want to.

[joeblast]

Your statements have nothing to do with your previous assertion, in regards to denying there is a problem with continued carbon emissions. Any data-base you look at makes it pretty obvious that our emmissions do effect the future of the planet, regardless of which model is used. If you can't produce a source to further your initial claim, then I think we are done.

 

You can argue against data of a scientist that I didn't produce, all day if you want, but that doesn't discredit the source I produced. The above post does not aid your argument in anyway, therefore is seemingly irrelevant.

Ah, but they do - and it is your misunderstandings that are blinding you from understanding the correlation. Sorry to be quite so blunt, but it is what it is. You are viewing these models are congruent to reality, and they quite plainly are not congruent, they are bad approximations that happen to hit a few data points - but until the coefficients are honestly addressed, these models will continue to spit out garbage predictions because some of the very basic premises are flawed.

 

You posted a quote from "a scientist" saying "well, our models indicate that we're going to see ridiculous temperature rises, etc" - basically, things that are not happening, have not happened, and coincidentally we are seeing reality not "comply" with the models.

 

If I cant produce a source Tell me, where is the burden of proof here? Am I the one saying that unless we spend a few trillion dollars to potentially ward off .002 degrees of warming by CO2, we're all going to die?

 

Sorry, but the onus is on the people producing these models - one cant simply say "well, reality is not matching my models, but my models are neverthless correct." There are continued divergences. Even from the recent IPCC AR4 there are substantial divergences in what the models forecast - this is not a problem, though? They also do not hindcast with any stunning accuracy either - no problem there?

 

But, "the models are still correct." Um...no, they are not correct. What is it you are missing? I've given you some data and its not good enough, even though what I have already given you has been plenty enough to run a very major crack through the very foundation of the CO2 scam.

 

It is a known fact that the models need to be constantly recalibrated to reality, recalibrated to a new starting point, and then the models are run and they give their output, and a little while later, we find inconsistencies. What does that say of the models and their cataclysmic predictions? Quite simply, that they are false and misleading if one is to consider them anything more than a theoretical construct.

 

 

 

 

Ralis, once again demonstrating that he doesnt but read the first sentence or two of my posts. Sorry brother, I am engaging in a very scientific questioning, and you are the one that is on the church's side here, ready to excommunicate anyone who is questioning the orthodoxy.

 

Go ahead and keep criticizing the source of the information bud - because you cannot refute the information itself, you can only disparage its sources - many of which come straight from following predictions made by your friendly neighborhood grant writers themselves.

[Informer]

blah,blah,blah

 

I'm not here to argue your opinion. Produce a source to back up or further your argument. A scientific, peer reviewed, academic source. You have already determined that neither of us are environment or climate scientist, so your opinion or mine is irrelevant.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Informer

[joeblast]

I'm not here to argue your opinion. Produce a source to back up or further your argument. A scientific, peer reviewed, academic source.

The models not reproducing reality is my opinion? No, that is a well known fact. We look at what is predicted, it does not match. We look at what is hindcast, it does not match nearly well enough to be comprehensive.

 

I need to go find a peer reviewed paper to tell you these things? These are plain as day facts, not my opinion. Do you need to turn on the TV to tell you that it is sunny outside?

 

That's the funny part about the "Climategate II" email dump - it shows how the grant writers themselves had reservations - yet they refused to show such reservations to the public, and put up a united front of universal agreement - which is quite an unscientific thing to do.

Edited December 22, 2011 by joeblast