The global warming thread. Is it for real?

[flacaltenn]

Hey ItFitzMe:

I'm thinking of changing my Avatar pix..

What do ya think of this one???

I like that limp part at the end better than yours....

Do a linear regression and see what you get.

Let us know what the coefficients, p-value, R^2, and confidence intervals for the regression line are.

Do both the line and log fit. That'll be interesting.

I KNOW what I will get for the past decade.. There's nothing there. But it's not unique.. There was also nothing from about 1935 to 1975..

Too bad I can't have THIS VIDEO as an avi.. You can see the trend line averaged over 10 years wander all over the place.. From "nothing" to significant and back to "nothing"...


Global Warming: Temperature vs CO2 concentration on Vimeo


That's what ya got ---- nothing..

 

[Oddball]

Give it up. *You lost already. *Now you are just making yourself look too stupid to know when to quit.

If your not sure, go ask Dr. Roy. He can model it for you.

There's nothing to give up.

You Malthusian declinist misanthropes have absolutely no objective, reproducible, quantifiable, verifiable and falsifiable science.

You're the one who needs to give up, Dudley.

Bla bla bla bla bla.

Zero...Zilch...Skiff...Bupkis...Nada...Diddly-poo...O-fer......Jack shit.....

That's what you got, Gomer.....Give it up.

 

[itfitzme]

Hey ItFitzMe:

I'm thinking of changing my Avatar pix..*

What do ya think of this one???*

I like that limp part at the end better than yours....

Do a linear regression and see what you get.

Let us know what the coefficients, p-value, R^2, and confidence intervals for the regression line are.

Do both the line and log fit. *That'll be interesting.

I KNOW what I will get for the past decade.. There's nothing there. But it's not unique.. There was also nothing from about 1935 to 1975..*

Too bad I can't have THIS VIDEO as an avi.. You can see the trend line averaged over 10 years wander all over the place.. From "nothing" to significant and back to "nothing"...*


Global Warming: Temperature vs CO2 concentration on Vimeo


That's what ya got ---- nothing..

Cherry picking isn't how it works. *You use all the data or you don't do it at all. *And, you have to verify tue statistical significance, or it means nothing. If you want to do the science, you have to do it right. *Otherwise, don't do it at all.

Because, when you do it wrong, you get bs like that video, or this

Look, if you want to be an idiot, that's fine by me. The world will keep getting warmer either way.

 

[Oddball]

Do a linear regression and see what you get.

Let us know what the coefficients, p-value, R^2, and confidence intervals for the regression line are.

Do both the line and log fit. *That'll be interesting.

I KNOW what I will get for the past decade.. There's nothing there. But it's not unique.. There was also nothing from about 1935 to 1975..*

Too bad I can't have THIS VIDEO as an avi.. You can see the trend line averaged over 10 years wander all over the place.. From "nothing" to significant and back to "nothing"...*


Global Warming: Temperature vs CO2 concentration on Vimeo


That's what ya got ---- nothing..

Cherry picking isn't how it works. *You use all the data or you don't do it at all. *And, you have to verify tue statistical significance, or it means nothing. If you want to do the science, you have to do it right. *Otherwise, don't do it at all.

Funny....Cherry picking works when you warmerist doomsayers are engaging in the practice, to create your stupid computer models.

Not funny as in "ha-ha", but Dane Cook funny.

 

[CultureCitizen]

And yet... When science is asked what pulled our primordial asses out of 3 consecutive ICE AGES -- the best answer is not cow farts or SUVs -- it's "planetary wobble" and natural cycles.. It's all there in our oldest ice records.. A mile of ice over Albany started melting because of ___________?

Solar influences are NOT well known.. You cannot accurately measure solar output from the ground and separate Watts from atmospheric absorption.. We have BARELY a 20 year record of sat data.. And it's NOT the 11 yr sun spot cycles. It's the Total Solar Irradiation number that has increased the temp forcing at the surface by 1W/m2 since the mid 18th century..

[/IMG]

The "squigglies" you see on the chart are individual "sun spot cycles".. But it's the TREND line of TOTAL irradiation that is ignored and discounted by the AGW clergy. 1W/m2 is approx 33% of the warming that we are trying to account for. You mention TSI --- "they" automatically start deflecting about sun spot cycles. WITH THE TSI removed --- of course... Just watch. Some cheesehead will post a "sun spot activity" chart within the next 10 posts...

And please note the "leveling off" of TSI towards the end of 20th century.. Popular AGW mythology today is just discovering the huge thermal "storage" effect of the oceans and even the land. They just discovered the diff btwn POWER (w/m2) and ENERGY (accumulated over time). So TSI is the ONE INDICATOR that would suggest a "pause" in the warming cycle that we are JUST NOW --- observing..

Now that is also "correlation" not a proof.. But that correlates BETTER with observations than just mere CO2 vs Temp for the past 20 years. Just with a delay due to "thermal inertia"....

We need ANOTHER 20 yrs of solar measurement from space to even BEGIN to understand the nuances of the PRIMARY source of thermal energy to the planet. Even a small shift in the SPECTRUM of solar radiation ---- could operate on the Greenhouse "window" and be a primary cause of warming or cooling.. What "color" is our sun??? How stable is THAT?

We don't have enough data to comment..

But let's ALL LEAP to conclusions based on fear and politics -----eh??

Flacaltenn,
If you want to stablish a correlation it would be best if you provided a chart showing both solar irradiation and global temperature ... putting just the solar irradiation just isn't right. Looking at your chart the variation looks impresive , until one takes a close look at the numbers. The lowest is 1360 , the highest is 1362... a variation of 0.14% in solar radiation.

...and yet , yes , solar activity is a valid factor. Which doesn't let me discard human activity as another important factor.

But let's ALL LEAP to conclusions based on fear and politics -----eh??

Perhaps you have not seen my previous posts.
AWG vs WG is just an academic debate right now.

The real reason for using green energy and green tech is achieving some independence from large corporations and reducing pollution. I am not really sure if man will have the capability to control weather or if it will be able to achieve such goal in a responsible way.

Nature is full of surprises : The sun migh just go into a low radiation period ... and maybe then we will be trying to produce mass amounts of co2 and methane to avoid another ice age.

 

[Oddball]

The real reason for using green energy and green tech is achieving some independence from large corporations and reducing pollution. I am not really sure if man will have the capability to control weather or if it will be able to achieve such goal in a responsible way.

The real reason for using "green energy" is political....Most allll of the "green energy" producers are big corporate interests, like GE.

Quit being a rube.

Nature is full of surprises : The sun migh just go into a low radiation period ... and maybe then we will be trying to produce mass amounts of co2 and methane to avoid another ice age.

OK...And what if you're wrong then?....Are millions of people frozen to death around the globe worth your pseudo-scientific central planner gamble?

 

[itfitzme]

Ah, "Establish".... had to read "stablish" four times. Kept getting "stable-ish"...

Apparently, "stable" is used to mean "precision" in some fields. Now it is "accurate" and "stable" as well as "accurate" and "precise". New one for me.

 

[itfitzme]

The real reason for using green energy and green tech is achieving some independence from large corporations and reducing pollution. I am not really sure if man will have the capability to control weather or if it will be able to achieve such goal in a responsible way.

The real reason for using "green energy" is political....Most allll of the "green energy" producers are big corporate interests, like GE.

Quit being a rube.

Nature is full of surprises : The sun migh just go into a low radiation period ... and maybe then we will be trying to produce mass amounts of co2 and methane to avoid another ice age.

OK...And what if you're wrong then?....Are millions of people frozen to death around the globe worth your pseudo-scientific central planner gamble?

Yeah, cuz CO2 does cause warming and I'll take the IPCCs model over your non-prediction any day. I know what they are doing. All you have is "It's stupid".

Besides, it is a lot easier to start a fire than it is to put one out. Someone already proposed the dumb idea of setting coal mines on fire to warm things up. Oh, wait... were doing that, one lump of coal at a time.

 

[flacaltenn]

And yet... When science is asked what pulled our primordial asses out of 3 consecutive ICE AGES -- the best answer is not cow farts or SUVs -- it's "planetary wobble" and natural cycles.. It's all there in our oldest ice records.. A mile of ice over Albany started melting because of ___________?

Solar influences are NOT well known.. You cannot accurately measure solar output from the ground and separate Watts from atmospheric absorption.. We have BARELY a 20 year record of sat data.. And it's NOT the 11 yr sun spot cycles. It's the Total Solar Irradiation number that has increased the temp forcing at the surface by 1W/m2 since the mid 18th century..

[/IMG]

The "squigglies" you see on the chart are individual "sun spot cycles".. But it's the TREND line of TOTAL irradiation that is ignored and discounted by the AGW clergy. 1W/m2 is approx 33% of the warming that we are trying to account for. You mention TSI --- "they" automatically start deflecting about sun spot cycles. WITH THE TSI removed --- of course... Just watch. Some cheesehead will post a "sun spot activity" chart within the next 10 posts...

And please note the "leveling off" of TSI towards the end of 20th century.. Popular AGW mythology today is just discovering the huge thermal "storage" effect of the oceans and even the land. They just discovered the diff btwn POWER (w/m2) and ENERGY (accumulated over time). So TSI is the ONE INDICATOR that would suggest a "pause" in the warming cycle that we are JUST NOW --- observing..

Now that is also "correlation" not a proof.. But that correlates BETTER with observations than just mere CO2 vs Temp for the past 20 years. Just with a delay due to "thermal inertia"....

We need ANOTHER 20 yrs of solar measurement from space to even BEGIN to understand the nuances of the PRIMARY source of thermal energy to the planet. Even a small shift in the SPECTRUM of solar radiation ---- could operate on the Greenhouse "window" and be a primary cause of warming or cooling.. What "color" is our sun??? How stable is THAT?

We don't have enough data to comment..

But let's ALL LEAP to conclusions based on fear and politics -----eh??

Flacaltenn,
If you want to stablish a correlation it would be best if you provided a chart showing both solar irradiation and global temperature ... putting just the solar irradiation just isn't right. Looking at your chart the variation looks impresive , until one takes a close look at the numbers. The lowest is 1360 , the highest is 1362... a variation of 0.14% in solar radiation.

...and yet , yes , solar activity is a valid factor. Which doesn't let me discard human activity as another important factor.

But let's ALL LEAP to conclusions based on fear and politics -----eh??

Perhaps you have not seen my previous posts.
AWG vs WG is just an academic debate right now.

The real reason for using green energy and green tech is achieving some independence from large corporations and reducing pollution. I am not really sure if man will have the capability to control weather or if it will be able to achieve such goal in a responsible way.

Nature is full of surprises : The sun migh just go into a low radiation period ... and maybe then we will be trying to produce mass amounts of co2 and methane to avoid another ice age.

That's a reasonable outlook actually.. I'm a moderate skeptic. I believe the contribution from CO2 has been blown waaaay out of proportion and the contributions from other climate drivers have been purposely manipulated to minimize them..

Which brings me to --- I don't accept ANYTHING from skepticalscience.com unless I first don a complete Class 3 biocontainment outfit and respirator. I posted the accepted merging of proxy records and recent measurements, and skepticalscience does a hachet job on dates and ranges with values I've never seen before. It's called data mangling.

Although 0.14% of Solar radiation might sound trivial --- it works out to about 1.0W/meter2. Which is about almost 1/3 of the 3 or 4W/m2 that we're looking for to explain the rise.

But what's interesting to me is that the AGW clan is NOW trying to explain away why the warming is taking a pause. So they suddenly discover that the earth land and oceans take a while to heat and cool.. And we might NOT be looking for a correlation with IMMEDIATE time coincidence. THere might be a considerable DELAY between the power forcing function being applied and a temperature change GLOBALLY. So WHEN did the TSI start to level off? About 20 or 30 years ago. How long are the AGW clan now saying the oceans will take to absorb heat and equalize? About 20 to 40 years..

Anyway -- you're right. At some point (((Some say in the next 22 yr solar cycle))) we might be glad that we warmed the planet by 1degF in your lifetime..

The climate isn't as fragile as AGW theory says it is. And that's a good thing..

PS.. I would love to see "green stuff" get adopted for the right purposes. Wind and Solar are NOT right as grid generators. They would do a bang-up job for desalinization, or fuel production or production of other things OFF GRID that do not demand 24/7/365 CONSTANT delivery to load demands. Don't know if you've read my stuff -- but I'm a huge proponent of using wind/solar for making hydrogen OFF GRID. Solves multiple problems at once..

 

[flacaltenn]

Do a linear regression and see what you get.

Let us know what the coefficients, p-value, R^2, and confidence intervals for the regression line are.

Do both the line and log fit. *That'll be interesting.

I KNOW what I will get for the past decade.. There's nothing there. But it's not unique.. There was also nothing from about 1935 to 1975..*

Too bad I can't have THIS VIDEO as an avi.. You can see the trend line averaged over 10 years wander all over the place.. From "nothing" to significant and back to "nothing"...*


Global Warming: Temperature vs CO2 concentration on Vimeo


That's what ya got ---- nothing..

Cherry picking isn't how it works. *You use all the data or you don't do it at all. *And, you have to verify tue statistical significance, or it means nothing. If you want to do the science, you have to do it right. *Otherwise, don't do it at all.

Because, when you do it wrong, you get bs like that video, or this

Look, if you want to be an idiot, that's fine by me. The world will keep getting warmer either way.

Hey.. Don't lecture me about "USING ALL THE DATA"... you pretender wanna be.

YOU'RE the one with an avi that missing the last EIGHT YEARS of data aren't you?????
MINE is missing nothing....

So when are gonna replace your AVI eh? Gonna wait another year? If you were a scientist using ALL THE DATA -- you'd do it tonight wouldn't ya?


Hypocrit....

 

[Oddball]

The real reason for using green energy and green tech is achieving some independence from large corporations and reducing pollution. I am not really sure if man will have the capability to control weather or if it will be able to achieve such goal in a responsible way.

The real reason for using "green energy" is political....Most allll of the "green energy" producers are big corporate interests, like GE.

Quit being a rube.

Nature is full of surprises : The sun migh just go into a low radiation period ... and maybe then we will be trying to produce mass amounts of co2 and methane to avoid another ice age.

OK...And what if you're wrong then?....Are millions of people frozen to death around the globe worth your pseudo-scientific central planner gamble?

Yeah, cuz CO2 does cause warming and I'll take the IPCCs model over your non-prediction any day. I know what they are doing. All you have is "It's stupid".

Besides, it is a lot easier to start a fire than it is to put one out. Someone already proposed the dumb idea of setting coal mines on fire to warm things up. Oh, wait... were doing that, one lump of coal at a time.

Um...That's not science.

That's appeal to authority, appeal to ignorance, false equivalence, non sequitur and rank stupidity all rolled onto one post.

Good effort, though.

 

[itfitzme]

And yet... When science is asked what pulled our primordial asses out of 3 consecutive ICE AGES -- the best answer is not cow farts or SUVs -- it's "planetary wobble" and natural cycles.. It's all there in our oldest ice records.. A mile of ice over Albany started melting because of ___________?

Solar influences are NOT well known.. You cannot accurately measure solar output from the ground and separate Watts from atmospheric absorption.. We have BARELY a 20 year record of sat data.. And it's NOT the 11 yr sun spot cycles. It's the Total Solar Irradiation number that has increased the temp forcing at the surface by 1W/m2 since the mid 18th century..

[/IMG]

The "squigglies" you see on the chart are individual "sun spot cycles".. But it's the TREND line of TOTAL irradiation that is ignored and discounted by the AGW clergy. 1W/m2 is approx 33% of the warming that we are trying to account for. You mention TSI --- "they" automatically start deflecting about sun spot cycles. WITH THE TSI removed --- of course... Just watch. Some cheesehead will post a "sun spot activity" chart within the next 10 posts...

And please note the "leveling off" of TSI towards the end of 20th century.. Popular AGW mythology today is just discovering the huge thermal "storage" effect of the oceans and even the land. They just discovered the diff btwn POWER (w/m2) and ENERGY (accumulated over time). So TSI is the ONE INDICATOR that would suggest a "pause" in the warming cycle that we are JUST NOW --- observing..

Now that is also "correlation" not a proof.. But that correlates BETTER with observations than just mere CO2 vs Temp for the past 20 years. Just with a delay due to "thermal inertia"....

We need ANOTHER 20 yrs of solar measurement from space to even BEGIN to understand the nuances of the PRIMARY source of thermal energy to the planet. Even a small shift in the SPECTRUM of solar radiation ---- could operate on the Greenhouse "window" and be a primary cause of warming or cooling.. What "color" is our sun??? How stable is THAT?

We don't have enough data to comment..

But let's ALL LEAP to conclusions based on fear and politics -----eh??

Flacaltenn,
If you want to stablish a correlation it would be best if you provided a chart showing both solar irradiation and global temperature ... putting just the solar irradiation just isn't right. Looking at your chart the variation looks impresive , until one takes a close look at the numbers. The lowest is 1360 , the highest is 1362... a variation of 0.14% in solar radiation.

...and yet , yes , solar activity is a valid factor. Which doesn't let me discard human activity as another important factor.

But let's ALL LEAP to conclusions based on fear and politics -----eh??

Perhaps you have not seen my previous posts.
AWG vs WG is just an academic debate right now.

The real reason for using green energy and green tech is achieving some independence from large corporations and reducing pollution. I am not really sure if man will have the capability to control weather or if it will be able to achieve such goal in a responsible way.

Nature is full of surprises : The sun migh just go into a low radiation period ... and maybe then we will be trying to produce mass amounts of co2 and methane to avoid another ice age.

That's a reasonable outlook actually.. I'm a moderate skeptic. I believe the contribution from CO2 has been blown waaaay out of proportion and the contributions from other climate drivers have been purposely manipulated to minimize them..

Which brings me to --- I don't accept ANYTHING from skepticalscience.com unless I first don a complete Class 3 biocontainment outfit and respirator. I posted the accepted merging of proxy records and recent measurements, and skepticalscience does a hachet job on dates and ranges with values I've never seen before. It's called data mangling.

Although 0.14% of Solar radiation might sound trivial --- it works out to about 1.0W/meter2. Which is about almost 1/3 of the 3 or 4W/m2 that we're looking for to explain the rise.

But what's interesting to me is that the AGW clan is NOW trying to explain away why the warming is taking a pause. So they suddenly discover that the earth land and oceans take a while to heat and cool.. And we might NOT be looking for a correlation with IMMEDIATE time coincidence. THere might be a considerable DELAY between the power forcing function being applied and a temperature change GLOBALLY. So WHEN did the TSI start to level off? About 20 years ago. How long are the AGW clan now saying the oceans will take to absorb heat and equalize? About 20 to 40 years..

Anyway -- you're right. At some point (((Some say in the next 22 yr solar cycle))) we might be glad that we warmed the planet by 1degF in your lifetime..

The climate isn't as fragile as AGW theory says it is. And that's a good thing..

It hasn't "taken a pause". It is still within the bounds of the predicted variance. What you can't explain is over 100 years, 1880 to 2000+, of warming that is caused by increasing CO2.

I get it at 0.00922 with Excel, at a p-value that is almost zero, and 76% R^2. When the IPCC does it, including El Nino, volcanos, sulfates, solar output, and CO2, their's is way better than I could ever hope for. And I know what they are doing, because I know how the science works.

All you have is some rough calculations of based on solar output that the IPCC already includes, and no predictions, no confidence levels, and cherry picking of data. And you still have, by your calculations, 66% to go.

Why not do it the right way and do the multivariate regressions? The statistics was developed decades ago.

 

[flacaltenn]

The real reason for using "green energy" is political....Most allll of the "green energy" producers are big corporate interests, like GE.

Quit being a rube.


OK...And what if you're wrong then?....Are millions of people frozen to death around the globe worth your pseudo-scientific central planner gamble?

Yeah, cuz CO2 does cause warming and I'll take the IPCCs model over your non-prediction any day. I know what they are doing. All you have is "It's stupid".

Besides, it is a lot easier to start a fire than it is to put one out. Someone already proposed the dumb idea of setting coal mines on fire to warm things up. Oh, wait... were doing that, one lump of coal at a time.

Um...That's not science.

That's appeal to authority, appeal to ignorance, false equivalence, non sequitur and rank stupidity all rolled onto one post.

Good effort, though.

Off topic break.. Just dawned on me..

"Drinking wine, Eating Cheese, Catching Rays" good golly you're FRENCH aintcha?
Or wannabee French living in Napa Valley...

 

[flacaltenn]

Flacaltenn,
If you want to stablish a correlation it would be best if you provided a chart showing both solar irradiation and global temperature ... putting just the solar irradiation just isn't right. Looking at your chart the variation looks impresive , until one takes a close look at the numbers. The lowest is 1360 , the highest is 1362... a variation of 0.14% in solar radiation.

...and yet , yes , solar activity is a valid factor. Which doesn't let me discard human activity as another important factor.


Perhaps you have not seen my previous posts.
AWG vs WG is just an academic debate right now.

The real reason for using green energy and green tech is achieving some independence from large corporations and reducing pollution. I am not really sure if man will have the capability to control weather or if it will be able to achieve such goal in a responsible way.

Nature is full of surprises : The sun migh just go into a low radiation period ... and maybe then we will be trying to produce mass amounts of co2 and methane to avoid another ice age.

That's a reasonable outlook actually.. I'm a moderate skeptic. I believe the contribution from CO2 has been blown waaaay out of proportion and the contributions from other climate drivers have been purposely manipulated to minimize them..

Which brings me to --- I don't accept ANYTHING from skepticalscience.com unless I first don a complete Class 3 biocontainment outfit and respirator. I posted the accepted merging of proxy records and recent measurements, and skepticalscience does a hachet job on dates and ranges with values I've never seen before. It's called data mangling.

Although 0.14% of Solar radiation might sound trivial --- it works out to about 1.0W/meter2. Which is about almost 1/3 of the 3 or 4W/m2 that we're looking for to explain the rise.

But what's interesting to me is that the AGW clan is NOW trying to explain away why the warming is taking a pause. So they suddenly discover that the earth land and oceans take a while to heat and cool.. And we might NOT be looking for a correlation with IMMEDIATE time coincidence. THere might be a considerable DELAY between the power forcing function being applied and a temperature change GLOBALLY. So WHEN did the TSI start to level off? About 20 years ago. How long are the AGW clan now saying the oceans will take to absorb heat and equalize? About 20 to 40 years..

Anyway -- you're right. At some point (((Some say in the next 22 yr solar cycle))) we might be glad that we warmed the planet by 1degF in your lifetime..

The climate isn't as fragile as AGW theory says it is. And that's a good thing..

It hasn't "taken a pause". It is still within the bounds of the predicted variance. What you can't explain is over 100 years, 1880 to 2000+, of warming that is caused by increasing CO2.

I get it at 0.00922 with Excel, at a p-value that is almost zero, and 76% R^2. When the IPCC does it, including El Nino, volcanos, sulfates, solar output, and CO2, their's is way better than I could ever hope for. And I know what they are doing, because I know how the science works.

All you have is some rough calculations of based on solar output that the IPCC already includes, and no predictions, no confidence levels, and cherry picking of data. And you still have, by your calculations, 66% to go.

Why not do it the right way and do the multivariate regressions? The statistics was developed decades ago.

Horseshit... Complete and utter horseshit...

The warming HAS taken a pause.. BY ANY measure of significance over at LEAST the last 12 years. We are looking at the 0.0XdegC/decade digit to see any significance.

The only P-value you've ever taken is on the poddy..

You "get it at 0.00922" FOR WHAT???? exactly..

If you're talking about the 33% figure that I tossed for TSI influence on surface radiative forcing.. I don't have 66% to go.. I can pull the exact same horseship that your AGW heroes pull and claim that my 33% is AMPLIFIED by their projected Climate Sensitivity amplifications of 4 and 5 that they pulled out of their P-Values on the poddy.

What works for amplifying CO2 --- works to amplify ANY OTHER RADIATIVE FORCING function don't it???

 

[itfitzme]

The real reason for using "green energy" is political....Most allll of the "green energy" producers are big corporate interests, like GE.

Quit being a rube.


OK...And what if you're wrong then?....Are millions of people frozen to death around the globe worth your pseudo-scientific central planner gamble?

Yeah, cuz CO2 does cause warming and I'll take the IPCCs model over your non-prediction any day. I know what they are doing. All you have is "It's stupid".

Besides, it is a lot easier to start a fire than it is to put one out. Someone already proposed the dumb idea of setting coal mines on fire to warm things up. Oh, wait... were doing that, one lump of coal at a time.

Um...That's not science.

That's appeal to authority, appeal to ignorance, false equivalence, non sequitur and rank stupidity all rolled onto one post.

Good effort, though.

It is medical science when I let my doctor do the medicine. It is meterogical science when I let the weatherman tell me the likelihood of rain. It's automotive science when I buy a car from Ford. It is climate science when I see what climatologists predict will be the climate.

It is ignorance when everytime you post, all you have to say is "It's stupid".

And yes, when it comes down to between you or science, science is the authority.

I will take the authority of my doctor's medical science over your ignorance any day because I am smart enough to know I'm not a medical doctor.

 

[CultureCitizen]

The real reason for using green energy and green tech is achieving some independence from large corporations and reducing pollution. I am not really sure if man will have the capability to control weather or if it will be able to achieve such goal in a responsible way.

The real reason for using "green energy" is political....Most allll of the "green energy" producers are big corporate interests, like GE.

Quit being a rube.

Nature is full of surprises : The sun migh just go into a low radiation period ... and maybe then we will be trying to produce mass amounts of co2 and methane to avoid another ice age.

OK...And what if you're wrong then?....Are millions of people frozen to death around the globe worth your pseudo-scientific central planner gamble?

I insist the real reason for using green energy should be reducing pollution, yes , large corporations will beneffit , but that is just the nature of capitalism. Some companies will do worse ( oil companies ) and others like GE will do better. No rocket science there.

If we find the Earth is going to enter a cooling we will find a way to heat it up.
It is easier to heat it up than to cool it down .

 

[itfitzme]

That's a reasonable outlook actually.. I'm a moderate skeptic. I believe the contribution from CO2 has been blown waaaay out of proportion and the contributions from other climate drivers have been purposely manipulated to minimize them..*

Which brings me to --- I don't accept ANYTHING from skepticalscience.com unless I first don a complete Class 3 biocontainment outfit and respirator. I posted the accepted merging of proxy records and recent measurements, and skepticalscience does a hachet job on dates and ranges with values I've never seen before. It's called data mangling.

Although 0.14% of Solar radiation might sound trivial --- it works out to about 1.0W/meter2. Which is about almost 1/3 of the 3 or 4W/m2 that we're looking for to explain the rise.*

But what's interesting to me is that the AGW clan is NOW trying to explain away why the warming is taking a pause. So they suddenly discover that the earth land and oceans take a while to heat and cool.. And we might NOT be looking for a correlation with IMMEDIATE time coincidence. THere might be a considerable DELAY between the power forcing function being applied and a temperature change GLOBALLY. So WHEN did the TSI start to level off? About 20 years ago. How long are the AGW clan now saying the oceans will take to absorb heat and equalize? About 20 to 40 years..

Anyway -- you're right. At some point (((Some say in the next 22 yr solar cycle))) we might be glad that we warmed the planet by 1degF in your lifetime..*

The climate isn't as fragile as AGW theory says it is. And that's a good thing..

It hasn't "taken a pause". *It is still within the bounds of the predicted variance. *What you can't explain is over 100 years, 1880 to 2000+, of warming that is caused by increasing CO2. *

I get it at 0.00922 with Excel, at a p-value that is almost zero, and 76% R^2. *When the IPCC does it, including El Nino, volcanos, sulfates, solar output, and CO2, their's is way better than I could ever hope for. And I know what they are doing, because I know how the science works.

All you have is some rough calculations of based on solar output that the IPCC already includes, and no predictions, no confidence levels, and cherry picking of data. *And you still have, by your calculations, 66% to go.

Why not do it the right way and do the multivariate regressions? *The statistics was developed decades ago.

Horseshit... Complete and utter horseshit...*

The only P-value you've ever taken is on the poddy..*

You "get it at 0.00922" FOR WHAT???? exactly..*

If you're talking about the 33% figure that I tossed for TSI influence on surface radiative forcing.. I don't have 66% to go.. I can pull the exact same horseship that your AGW heroes pull and claim that my 33% is AMPLIFIED by their projected Climate Sensitivity amplifications of 4 and 5 that they pulled out of their P-Values on the poddy.

What works for amplifying CO2 --- works to amplify ANY OTHER RADIATIVE FORCING function don't it???

No you can't. You can't account for 95% of the variation, or even 76% of the variation. *You are up to 33.3% so far. *Now you need El Nina, volcanic eruptions, ozone, sulfates, and CO2.

Then maybe you will get to this

But you will never get this

Or

Until you have all that, you have't got shit.

 

[flacaltenn]

Of course I can.. Climate Sensitivity numbers apply to ANY change of Watts/m2 at the earth's surface..
What's good for the goose --- is BETTER for the gander..

U gonna update your avi tonight?? Eh toadster??

 

[CultureCitizen]

It hasn't "taken a pause". It is still within the bounds of the predicted variance. What you can't explain is over 100 years, 1880 to 2000+, of warming that is caused by increasing CO2.

I get it at 0.00922 with Excel, at a p-value that is almost zero, and 76% R^2. When the IPCC does it, including El Nino, volcanos, sulfates, solar output, and CO2, their's is way better than I could ever hope for. And I know what they are doing, because I know how the science works.

All you have is some rough calculations of based on solar output that the IPCC already includes, and no predictions, no confidence levels, and cherry picking of data. And you still have, by your calculations, 66% to go.

Why not do it the right way and do the multivariate regressions? The statistics was developed decades ago.

I do recall a couple of charts showing the average surface temperature stabilizing during the last 12 years or so.

As per my hypothesis ( glaciar melts cooling down the Earth) , I am waiting until the end of the summer to see the total greenland ice melt. If the melt is almost as big as last year's melt I think my hypothesis could be plausible . If the melt is lower, it will most likely be wrong ( e.g. there is some other factor contributing to Earth's cooling)... so let's wait and see how things play out.

 

[westwall]

Really? *Where is it? *Show it to me. *Science is based on the Scientific Method. *Show me in the Scientific Method where no discussion is allowed for a so called "settled" science. *Hell show me ANY science that is "settled".

I must say I am VERY pleased that you are so desperate that you spend so much time here trying to convert the pagans to your religion. *We must be doing a bang up job 'cause you are here all the time!

Plenty of discussion goes on in science. But you have to actually have a knowledge of science that is at the level necessary for the discussion. *It's like when the whole family gets together for Thanksgiving. *The grownups sit at the grownup table and the kids sit at the kids table.

If I were to sit at a table of professional climatologists, I'd shut the f up. *The difference is eight years, at least, to a PhD plus more time spent working in the field.

Newton's Laws of motion are settled. Einstien's Theory of General Relativity. *These are settled. *There are huge amounts of science that is settled. *To get a bachelor's and master's degree in any particular scientific field and specialty, all you study is settled scientific principles.

You have to know the difference between what is settled and what isn't.

I hope that we can settle this tonight so we'll know whether to let airplanes fly in the morning. If they're built according to designs that are just WAGs instead of settled aeronautical science, I'd vote for keeping them on the ground.

If they built airplanes with computer models of your quality the plane would burst into flames as soon as the engines were fired up.