|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 12/20/2007 : 15:35:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
What 2800? |
The 2800 other authors (along with the 400) of the whole IPCC report.| The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. |
Did someone claim that? |
I hope not. |
Then why did you quote it?| It only takes one person to discover an already-existing consensus. |
Or imagine one. |
Apparently, you're not even going to argue the science of the consensus itself, just poo-poo it continually.
Originally posted by Bill scott
But the credibility of these computer model predictions took a significant hit in June 2007 when Dr. Jim Renwick, a top UN IPCC scientist, admitted that climate models do not account for half the variability in nature and thus are not reliable. "Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don't expect to do terrifically well," Renwick conceded.
http://tinyurl.com/2gg67u |
New Zealand's favorite climate model is right only half the time. This affects global climate science how?The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2. Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 %),”
http://tinyurl.com/373gab |
Popular-press editorial without a single reference to any scientific report. Contradicts first quote, above, in its reliance on accurate climate predictions.
More later...
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2007 : 20:21:42 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
The 2800 other authors (along with the 400) of the whole IPCC report. |
The original version(s)? Do all still hold their same position verbatim today? Please tell me more of this 2800.
| The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. |
Did someone claim that? |
I hope not. |
Then why did you quote it? |
Because in the piece I quoted in the first place it was implied that many do.
| Apparently, you're not even going to argue the science of the consensus itself, |
Which part of the science would you like to argue?
Originally posted by Bill scott
But the credibility of these computer model predictions took a significant hit in June 2007 when Dr. Jim Renwick, a top UN IPCC scientist, admitted that climate models do not account for half the variability in nature and thus are not reliable. "Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don't expect to do terrifically well," Renwick conceded.
http://tinyurl.com/2gg67u |
New Zealand's favorite climate model is right only half the time. This affects global climate science how? |
1. It just demonstrates once again that even world class climate models and forecasts can do no better then the flip of a coin. Don't take my word for it, but listen to Dr. J. Renwick of NIWA:
“The open admission by a climate scientist of the New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), Dr Jim Renwick, that his organisation achieves only 50 per cent accuracy in its climate forecasts, and that this is as good as any other forecaster around the world
And it's not like he is a mouthpiece for big oil. Take a look at his resume. I would say his opinion would worthy some merit.
He was a lead author on Working Group I of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, and serves on the World Meteorological Organisation Commission for Climatology Expert Team on Seasonal Forecasting.
2. If they can do no better then 48% for a local seasonal forecast it will grow even more a challenge with a long term global forecast as the number of natural variables would only increase.
| Popular-press editorial without a single reference to any scientific report. Contradicts first quote, above, in its reliance on accurate climate predictions. |
Well the two are entirely separate pieces whose only link to each other is me. So I will gladly withdraw this claim and replace it with another.
Developing…
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 12/20/2007 20:32:31 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 07:15:57 [Permalink]
|
Well the two are entirely separate pieces whose only link to each other is me. So I will gladly withdraw this claim and replace it with another.
Developing… |
As promised:
New peer-reviewed study finds clouds may greatly reduce global warming: Excerpt: This study published on August 9, 2007 in the Geophysical Research Letters finds that climate models fail test against real clouds. "To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent," Dr. Roy Spencer said. "At least 80 percent of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds, and those are largely under the control of precipitation systems. Until we understand how precipitation systems change with warming, I don't believe we can know how much of our current warming is manmade. Without that knowledge, we can't predict future climate change with any degree of certainty," Spencer added. The paper was co-authored by University of Alabama Huntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA
The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.
That was not what he expected to find.
"All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases," he said. "That amplification is a positive feedback. What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space."
The results of this research were published today in the American Geophysical Union's "Geophysical Research Letters" on-line edition. The paper was co-authored by UAHuntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.
Spencer and his colleagues expect these new findings to be controversial.
"I know some climate modelers will say that these results are interesting but that they probably don't apply to long-term global warming," he said. "But this represents a fundamental natural cooling process in the atmosphere. Let's see if climate models can get this part right before we rely on their long term projections."
http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=875
How surprising, yet another climate model prediction disputed by real world observations
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 12/21/2007 07:19:10 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 07:29:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Bill scott
I sense that this "consensus" is falling apart at the seams: http://tinyurl.com/399ggh
"EPA Chief Vows to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy' Career of Climate Skeptic" |
So Eckhart is an idiot. How does that change the scientific consensus, Bill?
|
It just demonsrates that desperate times call for desperate measures. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 07:47:36 [Permalink]
|
Oh what the heck, here is another "scientific-y" tidbit just recently released:
A New Record for Antarctic Total Ice Extent
While the news focus has been on the lowest ice extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979.
This can be seen on this graphic from this University of Illinois site The Cryosphere Today, which updated snow and ice extent for both hemispheres daily. The Southern Hemispheric areal coverage is the highest in the satellite record, just beating out 1995, 2001, 2005 and 2006. Since 1979, the trend has been up for the total Antarctic ice extent.
While the Antarctic Peninsula area has warmed in recent years and ice near it diminished during the Southern Hemisphere summer, the interior of Antarctica has been colder and ice elsewhere has been more extensive and longer lasting, which explains the increase in total extent. This dichotomy was shown in this World Climate Report blog posted recently with a similar tale told in this paper by Ohio State Researcher David Bromwich, who agreed “It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now”.
Indeed, according the NASA GISS data, the South Pole winter (June/July/August) has cooled about 1 degree F since 1957 and the coldest year was 2004.
<http://tinyurl.com/29e5lb>
Notice this was NASA's data and not Exxon's.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 12/21/2007 : 07:50:23 [Permalink]
|
So the ice caps are not melting, then. How reassuring that 400 scientists have implied this. How many, I wonder, are named Steve?
Edited to add this link & this one. Make of them what you will.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 12/21/2007 08:02:17 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 08:00:33 [Permalink]
|
And of course here is the bottom line:
A new MIT study concludes that the Sanders-Boxer approach would impose a tax-equivalent of $366 billion annually, or more than $4,500 per family of four, by 2015. And the annual costs will grow after 2015. [Read full MIT study
The Kyoto Protocol would have imposed an equivalent tax of $300 billion a year, 10 times the size of the Clinton-Gore tax increase of 1993. In addition to the MIT study, a new Congressional Budget Office study released recently, details how a carbon cap-and-trade system would result in massive wealth redistribution from the poor and working class to wealthier Americans.
Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), EPW Ranking Member, said today:
"Carbon caps would artificially and needlessly raise the cost of energy the most on the people least able to afford it. It astounds me that any Senator could support such a proposal."
Read Senator Inhofe's full opening statement from today's EPW subcommittee hearing
http://tinyurl.com/3x3qm6 |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 08:16:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
So the ice caps are not melting, then. How reassuring that 400 scientists have implied this. How many, I wonder, are named Steve?
|
| So the ice caps are not melting, then. How reassuring that 400 scientists have implied this. |
What? Who cares what the 400 or the 2800 scientists imply! The satellites have verified this, daily. Did you read my link?
I never said that ice caps were not melting. The satellites verified that the total ice extent was at record levels dating back to 1979, I believe. So you can point to individual ice caps all you want. I and the satellites are referring to total ice extent, which currently is at record levels in the S.H.
| How many, I wonder, are named Steve? |
Let's stick to the science and leave our emotions out of this. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 12/21/2007 08:24:12 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 08:35:33 [Permalink]
|
Bill:
Read Senator Inhofe's full opening statement from today's EPW subcommittee hearing. |
Inhofe, besides being one of the craziest members of the Senate is also the leading global warming denier there. Of course, that doesn't mean he is wrong, but it does mean that I must consider the source... I don't have time now to look into his blather, (I'm getting ready to head out of town) but it does seem interesting to me that all of this "new" news is coming right out of his office.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 08:49:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Bill:
Read Senator Inhofe's full opening statement from today's EPW subcommittee hearing. |
Inhofe, besides being one of the craziest members of the Senate is also the leading global warming denier there. Of course, that doesn't mean he is wrong, but it does mean that I must consider the source... I don't have time now to look into his blather, (I'm getting ready to head out of town) but it does seem interesting to me that all of this "new" news is coming right out of his office.
|
| but it does seem interesting to me that all of this "new" news is coming right out of his office. |
It's coming out of MIT.
A new MIT study concludes that the Sanders-Boxer approach would impose a tax-equivalent of... |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 12/21/2007 08:52:05 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 08:55:05 [Permalink]
|
Bill scott an annoying habit used by Creationists is to throw out myriad factoids one after the other in a debate or discussion. It becomes increasingly difficult for the other side to respond to any of them simply because of sheer volume, and the discussion ends up breaking down-- much to the Creationist's delight. Consciously or not, you're doing the same thing there. One post below has 15 different links to almost at many factoids. I'm confident that most-- if not all-- are questionable if not entirely bogus or otherwise useless. But the pattern seems to be that once one of the factoids is refuted, you ignore it and move on to 15 or 16 more new factoids.
What's the use? If you want to convince yourself that you're right, then it's mission accomplished (and not even in the George Bush sense that it's actually mission not accomplished, but I'm going to lie about it for PR points). Keep getting your news from Inhofe's website and rest easy that YOU know that this is a giant UN/Al Gore conspiracy. You win.
But if you really want to get to the bottom of it, then let's have a discussion. Pick a point and let's talk through it. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 09:22:59 [Permalink]
|
Bill:
Let's stick to the science and leave our emotions out of this. |
Is ridicule an emotion?
Bill, we've been covering the same tired, ol' ground for, seems like, infinity. It's boring the shit out of me.
Ok you & the earstwhile Jerome thecatman say, 400 scientists, and I say, so what? 400 is a small percentage of the those observing it world-wide. Were you not paying attention when it was stated that there is always disagreement in science at least until all of the facts had been combined into a solid theory? And even then, some few refuse to believe it.
I state again: Radical climate change is all but upon us and the only question that remains is the one of how much we are contributing to it. The rise in mean temperatures over the last couple of centuries, accelerating over the last, several decades is a damned good indicator that we are contributing quite a bit.
And so, how much tax toward cutting greenhouse gasses world wide would you be willing to pay to keep your descendents from starving?
So, thecatman really was Jerome. I'd suspected as much.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 09:27:21 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Cuneiformist |
| Bill scott an annoying habit used by Creationists is to throw out myriad factoids one after the other in a debate or discussion. It becomes increasingly difficult for the other side to respond to any of them simply because of sheer volume, and the discussion ends up breaking down-- much to the Creationist's delight. |
Not to any of my delight. I am chopping at the bit to discuss anyone of them you care to choose.
| One post below has 15 different links to almost at many factoids. |
All of which I am fully prepared to discuss.
| I'm confident that most-- if not all-- are questionable if not entirely bogus or otherwise useless. |
Based on what, a hand wave? It sounds like you havn't even looked at them.
| But the pattern seems to be that once one of the factoids is refuted, you ignore it and move on to 15 or 16 more new factoids. |
Let's go one at a time then and we can start with the factoid that Antarctica currently is enjoying a record total ice extent and according to NASA has dropped a full degree in temps since 1959. And please remind me which factoids have already been refuted.
| What's the use? If you want to convince yourself that you're right, then it's mission accomplished |
Let's stick to the science rather then the false accusations.
| Keep getting your news from Inhofe's website and rest easy that YOU know that this is a giant UN/Al Gore conspiracy. |
I have sourced many cites
I am not in this to "win."
| But if you really want to get to the bottom of it, then let's have a discussion. Pick a point and let's talk through it. |
I already did. Record Ice extents and dropping temperatures in Antarctica is just as good a place to start as any. We can move to the reliability and track record of man's climate models and their forecasting after that. Sound good? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 09:42:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
And of course here is the bottom line:
[i]A new MIT study concludes that the Sanders-Boxer approach would impose a tax-equivalent of $366 billion annually, or more than $4,500 per family of four, by 2015. And the annual costs will grow after 2015. [Read full MIT study] |
This is particularly annoying. I had to read through the whole report to find on page 54 the following:| If distributed to households, the annual distribution would be on the order of $1600 to $4900 per family-of-four household. |
So the Inhofe blurb is-- if you can believe it!-- cherry picking. And they can't even do that right, since "$4500" doesn't ever show up in the study. Someone mis-typed $4900, obviously. Inhofe is so incompetent that he can't even properly cherry-pick!
Anyhow, what's annoying is that while you can take a snippet from someone's blog that is almost certainly misrepresenting the facts, in order to go and prove that in fact, things are being misrepresented, I have to look through the whole thing, figure out what's being discussed (it's fair to say that Inhofe misrepresented more than just the final cost) and then post it here. Which, of course, you won't even acknowledge. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 09:46:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| I'm confident that most-- if not all-- are questionable if not entirely bogus or otherwise useless. |
Based on what, a hand wave? It sounds like you havn't even looked at them. |
No, based on experience. And I'm already one-for-one (what are the odds?), as the first one I looked at shows Inhofe cherry-picking numbers.
| But if you really want to get to the bottom of it, then let's have a discussion. Pick a point and let's talk through it. |
I already did. Record Ice extents and dropping temperatures in Antarctica is just as good a place to start as any. We can move to the reliability and track record of man's climate models and their forecasting after that. Sound good? |
Sounds good. It will take time to digest what's there, but I (and others) will look into it. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
MMGW DEBUNKED!!!
