The Information Age

[jsharp]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
jsharp
do you have car insurance, home insurance, and health insuranca ?

Who on Earth proved to you that you were going to crash, get sick and have your house burn down all in the same year ?


Because real empirical data tells me it's a good idea. Not models, not guesses, not information massaged to point to given conclusions. Actual hard stats that tell me there's some risk of potential losses that I might need to mitigate.

I don't by the way have hurricane insurance. Or insurance against forest fires, damage from alien aircraft crashes or stampedes of woolly mammoths though I'm sure someone would sell them to me if I asked. Living in the 20th century here in the prairie I think you can see why.

It's one thing to spend $ on insurance against things that actually happen and are demonstrable. Quite another to spend it on items unproven, never seen, highly unlikely, or impossible...

 

[jsharp]

Originally Posted By: MarkC
"...there 's no solid connection between man and the increased temps we think we're seeing on Mars... "

So, you'll doubt measurements here on Earth, but beleive ones from millions of miles away, and infer that Mars is warmig based on what timeframe>
Does that sound logical?


I thought my saying "temps we think we're seeing" would infer that I had some questions about them. I guess not.

The point was, we can't really argue that what happens on Mars is our fault can we? I mean, we've only sent a couple of very small SUV's there so far. And they're solar powered so they shouldn't be spewing out much CO2.

By the way, I've not noticed any links you've posted to explain the observed temperature measurement foolishness shown on that surfacestations.org site, and how it might effect the climate record.

Label me as not surprised...

 

[MarkC]

The point is, you can't even really say that Mars is warming, having only sent a few probes to a few sites.
I haven't noticed any links posted by you verifying that surfacestations.org has data that is used by NOAA or anyone else for researching Global temeratures. I don't see anything to that effect, nor do there seem to be satellite stations, or worldwide ones.
I also notice that you should use the word "affect" rather than "effect".

I've posted many links with data, Why should I repost for, just because you're late?
Look for youself.

This one is somewhat interesting:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: jsharp

The planet gets warmer. We're not sure why. Orbital changes perhaps.
So we don't know for sure what causes the initial increase or the termination of this cycle. Yet somehow we know with certainly that in the middle part of the cycle CO2 levels are responsible.

You refuse to see what's in front of you. You refuse to believe what 99+ % of reputable climatologists believe. There are no outside factors that can make the friggin' planet heat up except the greenhouse gases.

Think of water on a stove its not gonna' boil unless heat is added to it. Its really that simple. The world is heating up not bc of increased sun output, or orbital changes, or any of that silly stuff. Again its just that simple.

 

[Gary Allan]

There have been other influences that altered global temps ..and they could surely have been alterations to rotation, axis tilt, solar flares ..whatever. They were occurring over hundreds of thousands or millions of years ..for all we know the last ice age was due to some substantial impact that did the whole thing.

..but I hardly call it a waste to figure a way to survive this climate shift. I can't treat it with casual disinterest. If we are impacting it (and it's a little hard to reason that we aren't), then we need to attempt to control that impact. Not argue about whether we can. Let's first pro-actively set out to determine scale and proportion, not argue the validity of the seeking in enlightenment.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flaps like a duck ..it's most likely a duck ..and we're not playing a game of M.R. Ducks.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

..but I hardly call it a waste to figure a way to survive this climate shift. Then we need to attempt to control that impact. Not argue about whether we can.

Let's first pro-actively set out to determine scale and proportion, not argue the validity of the seeking in enlightenment.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flaps like a duck ..it's most likely a duck ..and we're not playing a game of M.R. Ducks.

I agree, but I also know that we will continue to use every last bit of Hydrocarbons bc there are really no other choices and we fiddle *&&%%&ed our opportunities away. I suspect that when I am feeble and awaiting my maker's calling...things will be mighty ugly and I'll be sadder for my friends and family than myself.

 

[jsharp]

Originally Posted By: MarkC
The point is, you can't even really say that Mars is warming, having only sent a few probes to a few sites.
I haven't noticed any links posted by you verifying that surfacestations.org has data that is used by NOAA or anyone else for researching Global temeratures. I don't see anything to that effect, nor do there seem to be satellite stations, or worldwide ones.
I also notice that you should use the word "affect" rather than "effect".

I've posted many links with data, Why should I repost for, just because you're late?
Look for youself.

This one is somewhat interesting:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm


"temeratures"?? What is that word anyway?? I guess I should ignore what you said?

Affect/effect - There's a general but unsaid rule in internet discussions. When you start pointing out typos in an attempt to dismiss what's being said, it means you don't have an valid argument and are grasping at straws.

And that's exactly what we see here. Asked to post a rebuttal to the real and public information shown on surfacestations.org you're unable to. I would think it would be easy to find on the internet if it existed. Instead, you ask me for additional links that validate the one I've already posted.

It's an old trick but not an affective (Opps! I think that should say effective but the spell checker didn't catch it...) one with me. Done. We'll accept that your unable or unwilling to provide any rebuttal.

And I'm done too. Come back when you've read enough, know enough, and are intellectually honest enough to have this discussion with me.

 

[jsharp]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: jsharp

The planet gets warmer. We're not sure why. Orbital changes perhaps.
So we don't know for sure what causes the initial increase or the termination of this cycle. Yet somehow we know with certainly that in the middle part of the cycle CO2 levels are responsible.

You refuse to see what's in front of you. You refuse to believe what 99+ % of reputable climatologists believe. There are no outside factors that can make the friggin' planet heat up except the greenhouse gases.

Think of water on a stove its not gonna' boil unless heat is added to it. Its really that simple. The world is heating up not bc of increased sun output, or orbital changes, or any of that silly stuff. Again its just that simple.


No outside factors?

No sun?
No volcanism?
No water vapor?
No other factors at all?

Just CO2, a trace element.

And a link posted by one of the AGW true believers to a site of AGW true believers stated that climatologists theorize that orbital changes might cause the initial heating given that CO2 couldn't since those levels didn't increase until *after* the temperatures had already increased.

Get it. The expert climatologists have no real explanation for the initial temperature step. None. Just theories that do not include CO2 since it's at a low level at the start of the heating cycle and remains high after the cycle ends.

That's what right in front of everyone. That's what's that simple. If you don't care to accept that I'm not sure what to say.

As far as 99+% of climatologists saying a given thing, I'd like to see the list vs. the doubters. I'd also like to see how many are on the grant gravy train or otherwise employed by government knowing full well if they disagree with the true believers their occupation will be in jeopardy.

Here's a link to James Hansen one of if not the most famous. His predictions have been horribly wrong but he keeps preaching -

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/06/gret-moments-in.html

Yes, 2008 has been far colder than 1988. We have seen no warming trend in the last 10 years, and temperatures have undershot every one of Hansen's forecasts. He thought the world would be a degree C warmer in 20 years, and it is not. Of course, today, he says the world will warm a degree in the next 20 years -- the apocalypse never goes away, it just recesses into the future.

This may explain why Hansen's GISS surface temperature measurements are so much higher than everyone else's, and keep getting artificially adjusted upwards: Hansen put himself way out on a limb, and now is using the resources of the GISS to try to create warming in the metrics where none exist to validate his forecasts of Apocalypse.

Believing what he says may be comforting, it may even be science to you. But it looks like another faith based system to me. And honestly, if I want to live on faith, I'll start going to church...

 

[jsharp]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
There have been other influences that altered global temps ..and they could surely have been alterations to rotation, axis tilt, solar flares ..whatever. They were occurring over hundreds of thousands or millions of years ..for all we know the last ice age was due to some substantial impact that did the whole thing.

..but I hardly call it a waste to figure a way to survive this climate shift. I can't treat it with casual disinterest. If we are impacting it (and it's a little hard to reason that we aren't), then we need to attempt to control that impact. Not argue about whether we can. Let's first pro-actively set out to determine scale and proportion, not argue the validity of the seeking in enlightenment.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flaps like a duck ..it's most likely a duck ..and we're not playing a game of M.R. Ducks.


No ducks around here, some peasants maybe. Oops! I mean pheasants... pesky spell checker again.

Seriously Gary, I agree it's not a waste to try to understand what's happening. I want to know and I'm hardly treating it with disinterest. I think I've illustrated that I'm not completely unread on the matter. I didn't get that way out of apathy and boredom.

But from that, I'm hesitant to call the matter closed as many have while they set about to implement programs to mitigate a problem that may or may not have much of anything to do with us. Especially when it seems only a few of us have to pay the price and make the changes while others get a pass...

 

[MarkC]

Originally Posted By: jsharp
Originally Posted By: MarkC
The point is, you can't even really say that Mars is warming, having only sent a few probes to a few sites.
I haven't noticed any links posted by you verifying that surfacestations.org has data that is used by NOAA or anyone else for researching Global temeratures. I don't see anything to that effect, nor do there seem to be satellite stations, or worldwide ones.
I also notice that you should use the word "affect" rather than "effect".

I've posted many links with data, Why should I repost for, just because you're late?
Look for youself.

This one is somewhat interesting:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm


"temeratures"?? What is that word anyway?? I guess I should ignore what you said?

Affect/effect - There's a general but unsaid rule in internet discussions. When you start pointing out typos in an attempt to dismiss what's being said, it means you don't have an valid argument and are grasping at straws.

And that's exactly what we see here. Asked to post a rebuttal to the real and public information shown on surfacestations.org you're unable to. I would think it would be easy to find on the internet if it existed. Instead, you ask me for additional links that validate the one I've already posted.

It's an old trick but not an affective (Opps! I think that should say effective but the spell checker didn't catch it...) one with me. Done. We'll accept that your unable or unwilling to provide any rebuttal.

And I'm done too. Come back when you've read enough, know enough, and are intellectually honest enough to have this discussion with me.


Well, let's start with the difference bewteen a typo such a "temerature" and an obvious use of the wrong word, such as Effect" vs. Affect"....
Is it your assertion that you hit the "e" when you meant to hut "a"? Whatever you say, chief.
About your surfacestations.org link, try this one,
http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/07/16/surface-station-temperature-data/

 

[Duffman77]

Originally Posted By: jsharp

That's basically what the link says. I've seen the source and others with the same explanation.

To expound -

The planet gets warmer. We're not sure why. Orbital changes perhaps.
Sometime later, about 800+- years, CO2 levels rise.
The CO2 levels then for some reason drive even further heating for about 4000+- years.
At that point some other process takes over, radiation perhaps. And in spite of the still very high CO2 levels the plant cools.
CO2 levels fall.
The cycle of about 5000 years ends.

So we don't know for sure what causes the initial increase or the termination of this cycle. Yet somehow we know with certainly that in the middle part of the cycle CO2 levels are responsible.

Ok, but you might see why I'm somewhat skeptical given that at both ends of the temperature step CO2 is not a factor. Just in the middle. And no mention of water vapor or anything else that might be a much larger factor in this cycle. It's conveniently all about CO2, a trace element in the atmosphere.

In any case they're just stating the same thing yet again. CO2 casues a temperature rise. Not a word as to why, and why only when it's already warm.

It's progress though. At least we've now all acknowledged the CO2 lag I spoke of.

I am going to break off the top part of the quote, it is getting a little long, but this is still a continuation.

Normally the word "lag" wrt to the GW argument is used by the denial side to refute the causality that CO2 causes warming. That article is not an against article but a debunking of the myth that warming causes CO2 and not that CO2 causes warming. That said I am not comfortable with the term "lag" as I see it as an attempt to reframe the causility and deny that CO2 causes warming. Although it appears that at the inflection point out of the ice age that CO2 can be driven by temperature in the initial stages.

One other thing that is being missed is water vapour. Warm air is able to hold more water than cold air. One of the other arguments from the denail side is that CO2 concentrations are so small they cant matter. Well the CO2 effect gets amplified by the H2O effect.

There is a theory as to why the earth goes from hot to rapid cooling and that is the ocean currents shut down so the poles are no longer warmed and they freeze over again despite hotter overall global temperatures.

My personal theory is that when the earth warms it converts both frozen areas and dry areas into more tropical like areas and vegitation grows due to favourable growing conditions converting the high CO2 concentrations in the air into sequestered carbon in solid form. The lowered ppm of CO2 returns the temperature back to the mean temperature. A natural shock absorbing cycle.

IMO is GW a cyclical phenominon and it will occur anyway? Absolutely yes! BUT BUT BUT, this porcess should take thousands of years. Right now humans are F***ing up the natural shock absorbing cycle of reforestation by raizing forests at record rates. We are also releasing sequestered carbon at rates that nature alone is incapable of. If someone can not see the last 2 points as human factors then I am wasting my time. The value of doing something to limit the runaway cycle of CO2 is that we can incur the natural cycle over a natural time period of thousands of years instead of adding fuel to the fire and inducing it to occur in the next 100 years.

 

[Duffman77]

Originally Posted By: jsharp


So we don't know for sure what causes the initial increase or the termination of this cycle. Yet somehow we know with certainly that in the middle part of the cycle CO2 levels are responsible.

Ok, but you might see why I'm somewhat skeptical given that at both ends of the temperature step CO2 is not a factor. Just in the middle. And no mention of water vapor or anything else that might be a much larger factor in this cycle. It's conveniently all about CO2, a trace element in the atmosphere.


The start and the end are really not important because we are not at the start or end of the cycle.

Also why is not a good question. Why does an object fall to the ground. Well its gravity. But why does mass attract other mass. Science does not honestly know why but it can predict the results with very high precision all of the time because it understands the model of gravity and that is really good enough.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: jsharp

No outside factors?

No sun?
No volcanism?
No water vapor?
No other factors at all?

Just CO2, a trace element.

Perhaps you misunderstood. There has been no correlation between sun's variances in energy output to melt the ice, and raise the temperatures of the oceans. in the last 30 years..and very rapidly in the last 10.

Volcanoes actually contribute to global cooling.

Water vapor may be contributing to the greenhouse effect but is being exacerbated by earth's warming due to other greenhouse gases (ie..more man made global warming) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html

Yes only the Trace gas CO2 which has increased by 30 percent in the last 100 years and (as per theory) is warming the planet. What you have to realize is that even a very very tiny mismatch in the Planet's energy balance will change temps. SO "tiny" is very relative. Oh yea C02 is a gas not an element
There are no other major naturally occurring energy sources except mans huge trillions of therms added to the atmosphere which is significant.

In short you are still saying that water is boiling on the stove without the help of a burner.

I know you love quoting sources like climateskeptic.com and numerous blogs. But most of us have tried to utilize sources like:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q5
It would be helpful if you could do the same. Then we could discuss credible information/sources.

 

[jsharp]

Originally Posted By: MarkC
Originally Posted By: jsharp
Originally Posted By: MarkC
The point is, you can't even really say that Mars is warming, having only sent a few probes to a few sites.
I haven't noticed any links posted by you verifying that surfacestations.org has data that is used by NOAA or anyone else for researching Global temeratures. I don't see anything to that effect, nor do there seem to be satellite stations, or worldwide ones.
I also notice that you should use the word "affect" rather than "effect".

I've posted many links with data, Why should I repost for, just because you're late?
Look for youself.

This one is somewhat interesting:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm


"temeratures"?? What is that word anyway?? I guess I should ignore what you said?

Affect/effect - There's a general but unsaid rule in internet discussions. When you start pointing out typos in an attempt to dismiss what's being said, it means you don't have an valid argument and are grasping at straws.

And that's exactly what we see here. Asked to post a rebuttal to the real and public information shown on surfacestations.org you're unable to. I would think it would be easy to find on the internet if it existed. Instead, you ask me for additional links that validate the one I've already posted.

It's an old trick but not an affective (Opps! I think that should say effective but the spell checker didn't catch it...) one with me. Done. We'll accept that your unable or unwilling to provide any rebuttal.

And I'm done too. Come back when you've read enough, know enough, and are intellectually honest enough to have this discussion with me.


Well, let's start with the difference bewteen a typo such a "temerature" and an obvious use of the wrong word, such as Effect" vs. Affect"....
Is it your assertion that you hit the "e" when you meant to hut "a"? Whatever you say, chief.
About your surfacestations.org link, try this one,
http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/07/16/surface-station-temperature-data/


From your link -

"The data may be flawed. However, when compared to global temperature data from other sources, it still has the same trends. For example, lets compare the temperature from CRUTEM3 and the MSU data from UAH."

And a good enough rebuttal right there so I don't even need to type one -

“This is a good initiative, but I doubt the motives of those conducting the survey.”

I am having real difficulty with this logic. Surely science is independent of the motives of the people who do it ? Isn’t this just a crude, ad hominem attack ?

“The data may be flawed. However, when compared to global temperature data from other sources, it still has the same trends… Those claiming that there is a temperature bias in the surface data, due to urban heat island or micro climate effects, need to show that the effects of placement of the weather stations has an effect on the global temperature.”

Again, I am flummoxed by the logic. You say that the MSU and surface temperature trends are the same; at the same time as saying that they are different from each other.

You stipulate that the data is flawed; if you show a fundamental flaw in a measurement, then it is the people who already use this data who have to justify that it is a correct and useful measure, and that the use of a flawed measure does not bias the existing surface temperature reconstructions.

Bold mine.

I'm on a couple of other boards where we have much more in depth conversations than these about a variety of subjects. There, we would call that 0wned by your own link.

We also see many common typos and word misuses there. To list a few of many -

The/teh
These/thses
Than/that
Their/their/they're
then/than
They/Thay
and yes, even affect/effect.

Now other than newbies, no one much pays attention to those common errors. Most people understand that when a person is focussed on the argument at hand they don't proof as well as they should. They also understand that in fact, the person does indeed know the difference and it's obvious from the context what is meant.

So, they show the courtesy and here's one you might google - intellectual honesty to not pick nits but to address the other persons point. Should "persons" used there have an apostrophe? I think so. You?

Anyway, we have another word for people who are unable to do that and instead focus on the minutia to avoid addressing an argument or conceding a point.

That term is Troll

Welcome to the club.

 

[jsharp]

Originally Posted By: Al

Perhaps you misunderstood. There has been no correlation between sun's variances in energy output to melt the ice, and raise the temperatures of the oceans. in the last 30 years..and very rapidly in the last 10.

Volcanoes actually contribute to global cooling.

Water vapor may be contributing to the greenhouse effect but is being exacerbated by earth's warming due to other greenhouse gases (ie..more man made global warming) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html

Yes only the Trace gas CO2 which has increased by 30 percent in the last 100 years and (as per theory) is warming the planet. What you have to realize is that even a very very tiny mismatch in the Planet's energy balance will change temps. SO "tiny" is very relative. Oh yea C02 is a gas not an element
There are no other major naturally occurring energy sources except mans huge trillions of therms added to the atmosphere which is significant.

In short you are still saying that water is boiling on the stove without the help of a burner.

I know you love quoting sources like climateskeptic.com and numerous blogs. But most of us have tried to utilize sources like:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q5
It would be helpful if you could do the same. Then we could discuss credible information/sources.


So you want to frame the argument so that the only data sources that are considered credible are ones that support your points?

Does that really seem reasonable to you?.

Did you see the link I posted to James Hansen's predictions? You know who he is right? James Hansen, of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. That data he's manipulating is funded by and belongs to US taxpayers. I would think that would pass muster.

Here is is again in case you didn't see it -

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/06/gret-moments-in.html

Too bad his predictions are horribly wrong as compared to actual measurements from his own agency. Yet you want me to accept that someone like him is a valid data source after his work has been shown to be questionable, by discounting any link I might post that points that out?

Sorry, no. I'm not falling for the appeal to authority with you providing the only accepted list of authorities. And I'm sure not buying into some person or agency from the government being honest, without an agenda, and always right.

That's exactly what most of the skeptics are calling into question.

Good you mentioned the oceans though.

Here's a link to some recent temperatures measurments of that very thing. It's from NPR, not exaclty a bastion of conservative thought. You OK with that?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

"The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat

by Richard Harris

Stuart Westmorland

Oceans hold much more heat than the atmosphere can.

Morning Edition, March 19, 2008 · Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years."

This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can."

A few things frightening from that link - The scientists are puzzled that the actual data they gathered doesn't match their models or predictions. So they right away question their measurement techniques and not their previous conclusions or models. Shown by -

"One possibility is that the sea has, in fact, warmed and expanded — and scientists are somehow misinterpreting the data from the diving buoys."

Amazing isn't it?

And volcanos, from what I know, you are right. On the surface they do in fact cause cooling. But what about underwater?

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...r-pressure.html

What might happen because of that is clearly unknown since until now they did not think it was possible.

And -

The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.

That can't be directly measured at the moment, however.

"Unfortunately, we don't have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they've been playing during this period," Trenberth says.

Their models and predictions do not deal with clouds at all. Their potential effects are being completely ignored and you can find any number of other things that are also being ignored. All you need to do is look.

So to reiterate my point yet again - It certainly seems like our global navel gazing is paying a lot of attention to CO2 while we ignore many more potenitally much larger factors. I'd certainly like to know why that is and see it stop.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Panzerman
I like the idea of nuclear power plants for our electricity, converting coal to oil and drilling everywhere, I think lower gas prices would be nice, but I would like is the money staying here in the United States, making US(U.S companies, yes even the oil companies) rich instead of building Arab empires. I was watching Ice road truckers the other night and seen how rediculas people are, there was a oil rig up in this remote area, 1000 miles from nowhere, not even accessable by roadway, only way trucks could get there was by travelling over the frozen lakes, said the place mise well as be on the moon because it was so remote. They had to pump muck out of the well to get to the oil, but had to have a truck come up and haul it away so as not to put it on the ground and disturb the enviroment. Who is going to see it, what is it going to disturb, its a frozen tundra, with no cilivation anywhere, yet they have to haul the muck to somewhere there is people and deal with it. Its stupid politics like this that make you wonder. Like a caribou is really going to care. I wish they would take all the Enviro's that make up these policies and purachute them in and tell them to enjoy the land, you dont need electricity or gas, they are evil.


I don't agree that just dumping it on the ground is the sensible way to dump the muck. Imagine if the oil executive think the same about your backyard. Beside, chain reaction finds there way into everyone's live eventually (think about the mercury level in the tuna these days).

 

[Al]

First of all I looked at those graphs in your reference. That is one piece of the puzzle, but still the red line scribbled on there is weak/and the curve fitting was terrible. He cited the low point lol..weak. And again one voice chirping in the face of overwhelming opposing view..Against by the majority of worlds climatologists.

Underwater volcanoes??? LOL a typical red herring.

Again you cite blogs and rogue websites. And you won't address the question of where all of this energy comes from.

And I'm not O.K. with NPR. But since you brought it up:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/s...619.woceans0619

"Dr. Church said the global average surface warming between 1961 to 2003 was about 0.4 degrees Celsius according to his team's estimates and that seas rose on average 1.6 millimetres a year during this period."

Since you can cite no reputable sources that can explain where all of the heat is coming from to melt all the ice and warm the oceans.
[/thread]
Its been nice.

 

[MarkC]

Originally Posted By: jsharp
Originally Posted By: MarkC
Originally Posted By: jsharp
Originally Posted By: MarkC
The point is, you can't even really say that Mars is warming, having only sent a few probes to a few sites.
I haven't noticed any links posted by you verifying that surfacestations.org has data that is used by NOAA or anyone else for researching Global temeratures. I don't see anything to that effect, nor do there seem to be satellite stations, or worldwide ones.
I also notice that you should use the word "affect" rather than "effect".

I've posted many links with data, Why should I repost for, just because you're late?
Look for youself.

This one is somewhat interesting:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm


"temeratures"?? What is that word anyway?? I guess I should ignore what you said?

Affect/effect - There's a general but unsaid rule in internet discussions. When you start pointing out typos in an attempt to dismiss what's being said, it means you don't have an valid argument and are grasping at straws.

And that's exactly what we see here. Asked to post a rebuttal to the real and public information shown on surfacestations.org you're unable to. I would think it would be easy to find on the internet if it existed. Instead, you ask me for additional links that validate the one I've already posted.

It's an old trick but not an affective (Opps! I think that should say effective but the spell checker didn't catch it...) one with me. Done. We'll accept that your unable or unwilling to provide any rebuttal.

And I'm done too. Come back when you've read enough, know enough, and are intellectually honest enough to have this discussion with me.


Well, let's start with the difference bewteen a typo such a "temerature" and an obvious use of the wrong word, such as Effect" vs. Affect"....
Is it your assertion that you hit the "e" when you meant to hut "a"? Whatever you say, chief.
About your surfacestations.org link, try this one,
http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/07/16/surface-station-temperature-data/


From your link -

"The data may be flawed. However, when compared to global temperature data from other sources, it still has the same trends. For example, lets compare the temperature from CRUTEM3 and the MSU data from UAH."

And a good enough rebuttal right there so I don't even need to type one -

“This is a good initiative, but I doubt the motives of those conducting the survey.”

I am having real difficulty with this logic. Surely science is independent of the motives of the people who do it ? Isn’t this just a crude, ad hominem attack ?

“The data may be flawed. However, when compared to global temperature data from other sources, it still has the same trends… Those claiming that there is a temperature bias in the surface data, due to urban heat island or micro climate effects, need to show that the effects of placement of the weather stations has an effect on the global temperature.”

Again, I am flummoxed by the logic. You say that the MSU and surface temperature trends are the same; at the same time as saying that they are different from each other.

You stipulate that the data is flawed; if you show a fundamental flaw in a measurement, then it is the people who already use this data who have to justify that it is a correct and useful measure, and that the use of a flawed measure does not bias the existing surface temperature reconstructions.

Bold mine.

I'm on a couple of other boards where we have much more in depth conversations than these about a variety of subjects. There, we would call that 0wned by your own link.

We also see many common typos and word misuses there. To list a few of many -

The/teh
These/thses
Than/that
Their/their/they're
then/than
They/Thay
and yes, even affect/effect.

Now other than newbies, no one much pays attention to those common errors. Most people understand that when a person is focussed on the argument at hand they don't proof as well as they should. They also understand that in fact, the person does indeed know the difference and it's obvious from the context what is meant.

So, they show the courtesy and here's one you might google - intellectual honesty to not pick nits but to address the other persons point. Should "persons" used there have an apostrophe? I think so. You?

Anyway, we have another word for people who are unable to do that and instead focus on the minutia to avoid addressing an argument or conceding a point.

That term is Troll



Welcome to the club.


It seems you're the one who can't stay focused. You posted a link with data and "facts" I posted a link that directly addressed
that. You didn't like it, so what?
The upward trend is there, whichever data set you look at.
You know as well as I that we can go back and forth posting contradictory links for as long as we like. Believe what you want to, we can always wait and see what happens.
Meanwhile, you can practice differentiating words that sound similar, but are spelled differently and have different meanings.

 

[jsharp]

Originally Posted By: MarkC


It seems you're the one who can't stay focused. You posted a link with data and "facts" I posted a link that directly addressed
that. You didn't like it, so what?
The upward trend is there, whichever data set you look at.
You know as well as I that we can go back and forth posting contradictory links for as long as we like. Believe what you want to, we can always wait and see what happens.
Meanwhile, you can practice differentiating words that sound similar, but are spelled differently and have different meanings.


You did post a link. The trouble is at the very same link was a rebuttal of the information posted that completely destroyed your argument. A number of them. Sort of makes the link a bit weak IMO.

Meanwhile, your guys can't explain the measurement inaccuracies and have fallen back on "well, the trend is the same so it doesn't matter."

It does matter. When you're talking about predictions of change of .1°C or .2°C from "CO2 forcing" and your measurement inaccuracy is 10X-20X that or more, the measurement is junk and you can't use it to prove much of anything.

Claiming all you need is the trend, IOW the slope of the curve, is ridiculous.

Warming may or may not be taking place. In the last 10 years there's been little to none or it's been cooling depending on what data you look at. Meanwhile, it's said that CO2 levels have continued to rise. Higher CO2 levels, little to no warming and some data supports cooling.

So where's the CO2 = warming linkage? There isn't any that can be shown. And so far it's impossible to prove. Not even James Hansen can do it, the messiah of the AGW movement. That's the bottom line and no matter how much the true believers screech they can't make it different.

Maybe James Hansen should run for office where he could grandstand in front of congress full time. He may even be able to get those evil oil company executives prosecuted like he called for last week.

"CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature."

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf

A guy like that may pass as a scientist in your world since you seem to agree with him and his politics. But he certainly doesn't in mine. Then again, in my world things have to actually work. Models and predictions need to be accurate and measurements need to be valid and repeatable or things tend to go poof or make booms that leave giant smoking holes in the ground. And know what? They don't give a whit about my politics or my faith...

 

[jsharp]

And for anyone still reading, here's a few links to scientists that are AGW skeptics. Every one of them PhD's and well respected in the field. Their names don't come up much because their views run counter to the AGW hysteria and bias. You can find hundreds more with a little time on google

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Carter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Patterson

Stop getting your information from the liars in mainstream media and stop accepting what they tell you as gospel. Do your own research with an open mind and draw your own conclusions. You'll be more learned because of it...