@Dandy

Quote:

Where do you take the confidence from that this could be right, if you're "skeptical of any ancient sample taken from our ever changing environment that's presented as if it's "frozen in time" and as accurate as if it were plucked strait from millions of years ago"?

Hey, we're still good here. You just missed the subtle irony in my comment.....

(If we agree to accept some of the findings by said same scientist)

The same community blaming this on us now, has told us climate in the past has warmed and cooled over and over "on it's own", some times drastically. So now what are we to believe? They had it wrong then, or they have it wrong now, or it's some where in the middle? For me I just like to hear truthfull comments like... "we're still learning, we don't fully understand the system, but this is our best theory so far".
...

Quote:

I mean - for me it is logical that a complex system as global climate cannot be depicted in its entirety in every publication.

My complaint comes when one theory tries to dismiss other theories with out anaylsis that satisfies me. But then that's my problem I suppose. Also stuff like "the data is irrifutable!" How many times has comments like that gone down in flames once newer more accurate studies are done?

It's fine to study and present findings on one topic without delving into all the others, but I find error when the fabled "cherry picking" begins to occur and one or just a few of the long list of variables are used to set an agenda.

As an example, our science community says that some catastrophy happened millions of years ago wiping out a huge precentage of the life at that time. This supposedly made the opportunity for more advanced mammals (us included) to thrive and evolve in to all the niffty stuff we have today. Based on that fact alone I could say it's time to wipe out 90% of the life on earth and let the next best thing take over. And extreme example, but at times some groups will focus on one fact and try to exploit it will ignoring other input. Annoying to say the least.

Quote:

The sum of them might come close to describing the problem properly...

Yes it might, and if all would take them in that light I would feel much better about it.

Quote:

Yeah - recently I had the chance to watch some of the rare colour film documents from the WWII period. The sea and the sky looked so blue that it seemed to be unnatural from a todays perspective.

I've seen those too and I wonder it the type of film had any thing to do with the coloring some time. It's so colorful. Did it really look like that? Wish my grandad (WWII vet) was still around to ask.

Quote:

I asked myself if I could smell a difference, if I was able to take a deep breath of that seemingly much cleaner air of the 1930s...

I picked earlier at 1900 because you recall the industrial revolution was well underway in the US and several parts of Europe by the 30's. And there was no such thing as the EPA at that time. Life exspectancy next to the local steel or coal mill was probably very short.

Quote:

Naaahhh - not really, as I did not want to discuss the role of CO2 here - I just wanted to illustrate what we are basically doing by burning fossiles. Decades of ancient sunshine were necessary to grow a tree some million years ago - and we release this "ancient sunshine of decades" within minutes by driving a few miles/kilometers.

It does come back around to competing theories though. One I find interesting is the role of techtonic activity grinding away at the earth internals creating oil as a byproduct. Am I to believe all the oil is old piles of dead dinosaurs and trees?

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/04/20/is-tectonic-activity-the-real-source-of-oil-should-we-be-using/

Quote:

while on the other hand we're reducing the atmosphere's ability to dissipate this additional heat to space (by aerating it).

More stuff I have to play skeptic on. Any one have data on how much more or less the earth has radiated as a whole body over time. Nope. Is it a good radiator and lossed excess heat well or not? Or is it's ability to shed heat more affected by the "hotter" space around us. Agreed make more hot stuff and the temp wil go up. But we're back a bit to what's having the bigger deciding effect.

Quote:

Given that more and more developing countries (India, China, ...) jump on that "burning fossiles train", it should be clear that this has the potential to lead

And reports are they are polluting to beat the band too. Not going to be a pretty day as long as that's the norm. Ultimately the environment with punish such folly with really bad times for a lot of people.

Quote:

Of course this pollution is annother major issue. You see - there's a lot to be done - let's tackle it!

Sigh, I live the 80-20 rule I first shared back around 1979.... 80% of the people.. don't care, can't or won't learn, or just simply won't agree with the other 20% on any matter. You have to have an amazing event to change those numbers. I can try to make my little space better and explain to other why it's a good thing, but will they listen? Eh.....

Global change might really be a man made problem that needs attention, but some of the evidence is being presented in a way that I think is hurting as much as helping. Net sum gain on public opinion at about ~0.

Personally, I'm betting on sunspots and geo-thermal energy. But I'm not that good at poker.

Plaz

@TMTisFree

I am properly ticked off for taking a number off the top of my head instead of going back to the reference. However, your interpretation of the graph seems at odds with that of the climate modelers who used the ERBE figures to tune their models and modify their feedbacks with respect to cloud formation. The graph you display appears to originate with a presentation:

Testing climate sensitivity using observations of the earths radiation imbalance
Yong-Sang Choi
Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, MIT

wherein he makes this ungrammatical observation: "Moreover, the relationship was fit on the theoretical expectation, reassuring our approach appears to be appropriate. " Intrigued I decided to look around further, here for instance:

A note on the effect of GCM tuning on climate sensitivity
F A-M Bender
Department of Meteorology, University of Stockholm, S-10691 Stockholm, Sweden
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/3/1/014001/erl8_1_014001.html
Wherein I find:
"According to both ERBE and CERES the amount of short-wave (SW) radiation absorbed by the Earth is larger than the amount of long-wave (LW) radiation emitted, which would indicate a heating of the system. The measured radiative imbalance is of the order of 5 W m^-2, and is somewhat larger for CERES than for ERBE (see on-line data quality summaries at http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov for details). Imbalances of this magnitude are not realistic and may, for instance, be compared with estimates of ...blah blah "
my emphasis - further on he says:
"The ERBE-like model configuration is tuned to a global mean TOA balance of ca. 234 W m^-2 outgoing LW and net SW radiation. This is close to the default model configuration and only a slight alteration is made to the relative humidity threshold for formation of low clouds, which is decreased from 90% to 88%. The CERES-like model configuration is tuned to a global mean TOA balance of ca. 238 W m^-2 outgoing LW and net SW radiation. This is further from the default model configuration and the new balance is achieved by altering the relative humidity threshold for forming high clouds (from 80% to 85%), the relative humidity threshold for forming low clouds (from 90% to 87%) and the rate of autoconversion of cloud droplets to raindrops in shallow convective clouds (from 2 × 10^-4 to 1 × 10^-3). The magnitudes of these changes in parameter values do not exceed the differences in the default values of the same parameters in different horizontal resolution versions of the model (Collins et al 2004)."

.....and so on. The radiative balance at present represents heat gain for the planet, not heat loss.
Quote:

now you mix it with energy when Dandy is talking about heat:

some law of thermodynamics, it is all heat on the way to the end.

Noel

@Plaz

Quote:

Quote: Yeah - recently I had the chance to watch some of the rare colour film documents from the WWII period. The sea and the sky looked so blue that it seemed to be unnatural from a todays perspective. I've seen those too and I wonder it the type of film had any thing to do with the coloring some time. It's so colorful. Did it really look like that? Wish my grandad (WWII vet) was still around to ask.

I thought this thing about the colour of the ocean was a joke when I first read it - surely. It just goes to show how the warmists will take on board *anything* to promote their cause.

Of course the type film had something to do with it! Colour film for portable use during WWII hadn't long been available. It was the same with early colour TVs - unnatural "technicolor" picture!

Back during World War I the oceans were grey! I'll have to ask someone who was alive then to confirm!

@TMTisFree

Quote:

You quote a number with a power unit, now you mix it with energy when Dandy is talking about heat: confused you are.

Says the person who thinks meter times second is a unit of distance....

@BrianK

Quote:

In order to determine if your inference is an accurate representation we must be able to exhaust all other possiblities.

Of course not. You provide a faulty quote, you have to exhaust all possibilities. In the mean time, I consider your unconfirmed quote invented and as such did not support your associated claim.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@NoelFuller

Quote:

CO2 Fertilisation? Ouch!!

Not a peer reviewed work, probably cherry-picked results (just kidding ). Interesting, but it is difficult to judge a study when methodology and statistic are unknown. I seem to remember (from University, plant physiology course) that CHN production by plant is a sign of defence against predators. Anyway, I read recently that a more stressing problem in Africa is pests (against cassava). Some countries have began to switch to GM plants (provided free by a firm supported with funds from the Gates' foundation). Selection of better plants and GM will improve crops and nutrition when needed. CO2Science has also some study about cassava, with measures of biomass and photosynthesis changes.

Edit: a typo

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 02-Jul-2009 at 05:59 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Of course not. You provide a faulty quote, you have to exhaust all possibilities. In the mean time, I consider your unconfirmed quote invented and as such did not support your associated claim.

Of course. You are free to accept on faith... But, to prove ultimiately true we have to question the validity of all other options...

@NoelFuller

Yong-Sang Choi seems to be a student of Pr Lindzen. Both currently have some papers in review state dealing with this matter. 2009 will be interesting.

Quote:

According to both ERBE and CERES the amount of short-wave (SW) radiation absorbed by the Earth is larger than the amount of long-wave (LW) radiation emitted, which would indicate a heating of the system

The excess of LW has been confirmed by numerous papers (Wielicki et al. 2002, Cess and Udelhofen 2003, Lin at al. 2004, Chou and Lindzen 2005, Chen et al. 2002, Hatzidimitriou et al. 2004, Clement and Soden, 2005, Del Genio and Kovari 2002). So I doubt your reference used correct data or data correctly.

Quote:

some law of thermodynamics, it is all heat on the way to the end.

Sure. Some law of life, we are all dead on the way to the end.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@umisef

...expressed per unit frequency interval.

Bzzz...bzzz...shklong... ... ... ... ...

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

You are free to accept on faith

You misunderstood: it is just the opposite as I do not accept on faith your fabricated quote.

Quote:

we have to question the validity of all other options

You can invent as many options as you want. I stick to the original link and text which showed unambiguously that the EMail from Peisner did not include their/your quote from him.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

You misunderstood: it is just the opposite as I do not accept on faith your fabricated quote.

You misunderstood. You have failed to show that other possible outcomes are not true. Yet you have rejected them by accepting another as the truth. This is an arguement on faith not on logic.

Quote:

I stick to the original link and text which showed unambiguously that the EMail from Peisner did not include their/your quote from him.

True in so far as the link did indicate an email. However, where the error lies is unproven.

@BrianK

Not my invented quote, not my unsupported claim, not my problem.

Edit: typo

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 02-Jul-2009 at 05:56 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@NoelFuller

Quote:

The ERBE-like model configuration is tuned

The graph below (from Wielicki et al. 2002) shows that models fail to reproduce ERBE data after 1990 up to a factor 7 by underestimating the LW:



If the ERBE data were 2 or 3 times the models mean, that would imply no feedback. At more than 3, negative feedbacks take over.

Edit: reduced the picture

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 02-Jul-2009 at 08:05 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@damocles

Quote:

And they will supress anything that may stop them from getting those taxes.

well EPA is now more "Political" then doing their real job. I posted before about CO2 now considered a "toxic" gas by EPA.

Glenn Beck: Who Benefits From Cap-and-Trade? watch the video on there Glenn makes bad news "fun"

Glenn Beck: Cap-and-Trade Is About Power and Control watch the video on there.

Last edited by Interesting on 02-Jul-2009 at 07:14 PM.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@damocles

Quote:

And they will supress anything that may stop them from getting those taxes.

A must watch !!!

video of the man who wrote the
"Supressed EPA Report"

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@Interesting

Thanks for the video. Dr Carlin seems to be a respectable man. His first time TV it also appears.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Interesting

Quote:

A must watch !!!

We've discussed all this before here. What I found interesting is that the arguement wasn't the last decade of temps but only last 6 years. I guess that'd be because, as demonstrated in another thread here, the last decade (Jan 2000 - Jan 2009) has warmed. The least he could have done was go for the El Nino spike in 1998 and claim the last 12 years. Certainly better support than 6.

@BrianK

Quote:

We've discussed all this before here.

why is this info supressed then? USA taxpayers pay for this study, we own it and should have access to all info.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@Interesting

Another skeptical moonwalker: Quote:

"I think the climate has been changing for billions of years. If it's warming now, it may cool off later. I'm not in favour of just taking short-term isolated situations and depleting our resources to keep our climate just the way it is today. I'm not necessarily of the school that we are causing it all, I think the world is causing it."

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

Quote:

I think the climate has been changing for billions of years. If it's warming now, it may cool off later.

The climate will warm as long as the humans keep destroying it. Once the human race is eliminated then the climate will cool again..

_________________
Men who have girlies in their avatars are Girliemen!