Page 27 of 37 FirstFirst ... 172526272829 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 367

Thread: 2001-2010 was the warmest decade since records began

  1. #261
    Advisor Morrigi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    10-13-14 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    351

    Re: 2001-2010 was the warmest decade since records began

    Quote Originally Posted by erod View Post
    the awg cult has now surpassed the scientologists as the most brainwashed bunch going.

    These are the same folks who thought aids, bird flu, swine flu, y2k, killer bees, and god knows what else was going to wipe us out long ago.

    It's nothing but a way to line pockets with government money and raise taxes on the wealthy. Transparent as can be.
    The bees, not the bees!

  2. #262
    Sage
    Oftencold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    A small village in Alaska
    Last Seen
    05-09-14 @ 12:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    5,044

    Re: 2001-2010 was the warmest decade since records began

    Quote Originally Posted by Threegoofs View Post
    The thermometers were actually very accurate and calibrated. There weren't too many though, but British Naval records are pretty useful here.

    Either way, its confirmed and backed up by temperature proxies that prove the temperature is rising faster than ever before. This isn't a disputed scientific point.

    I actually think science has a fantastically good record of predictions. In drug discovery, I'm constantly amazed at chemists designing a molecule that inhibits an enzyme exactly as they say it will. And that inhibition, dontcha know, does pretty much what the physiologists and biologists say it will. It's science.
    "It's science."

    Except that, it's usually not. At least not in a large proportion. Were it, there would be much more rigorous attempts to test the theories involved. And funding for research would be divorced from published works in favor of official policy. Experimentation would be demanded.

    Also, recitation of scientific conclusions (a fairly abhorrent concept in classical scientific thinking,) is not science itself.

    As I said, what most people think of incorrectly as "science," is abysmal at prediction. First of all, most people conflate and confuse science and technology. One might even ask "does pure science actually predict." I'd say the pure science doesn't, since it is involved in observation and experimentation with the goal of determining facts, and by its nature, the future is never a fact, Doctor Who notwithstanding.

    Prediction would be a tool to test theory, not the theory itself. Certainly scientists, predict, bureaucrats and politicians wishing to thought of as "scientific" predict, authors and grant writers predict in the "name of science," and even the occasional honest man will predict using knowledge gained through scientific endeavor.

    Economics is now considered a science, by economists at least, and we all know the veracity of their predictions. Research psychologists have certainly produced mountains of "scientific theories of learning" that "predicted" vast improvement in education, but have lead to legions of young adults who are scarcely literate. Pharmacological chemists routinely are said to predict outcomes for medications that are soon recalled as ineffective, often damaging and occasionally lethal. And of course, climatologists were predicting a soon-to-dawn ice age not so long ago.

    As for "temperature proxies that prove the temperature is rising faster than ever before," that's quite an assertion, given the billions of years that the planet has been chugging along, often hotter, often colder than what we find about us now.
    Last edited by Oftencold; 07-15-13 at 01:52 AM.
    Quod scripsi, scripsi

  3. #263
    Quantum sufficit

    Threegoofs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The birthplace of Italian Beef
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,539

    2001-2010 was the warmest decade since records began

    Quote Originally Posted by Oftencold View Post
    "It's science."

    Except that, it's usually not. At least not in a large proportion. Were it, there would be much more rigorous attempts to test the theories involved. And funding for research would be divorced from published works in favor of official policy. Experimentation would be demanded.

    Also, recitation of scientific conclusions (a fairly abhorrent concept in classical scientific thinking,) is not science itself.

    As I said, what most people think of incorrectly as "science," is abysmal at prediction. First of all, most people conflate and confuse science and technology. One might even ask "does pure science actually predict." I'd say the pure science doesn't, since it is involved in observation and experimentation with the goal of determining facts. Prediction would be a tool to test theory, not the theory itself. Certainly scientists, predict, bureaucrats and politicians wishing to thought of as "scientific" predict, authors and grant writers predict in the "name of science," and even the occasional honest man will predict using knowledge gained through scientific endeavor.

    Economics is now considered a science, by economists at least, and we all know the veracity of their predictions. Research psychologists have certainly produced mountains of "scientific theories of learning" tht "predicted" vast improvement in education, but have lead to legions of young adults scarcely literate. Pharmacological chemists routinely are said to predict outcomes for medications that are soon recalled as ineffective, often damaging and occasionally lethal. And of course climatologists were predicting a soon-to-dawn ice age not so long ago.

    As for "temperature proxies that prove the temperature is rising faster than ever before," that's quite an assertion, given the billions of years that the planet has been chugging along, often hotter, often colder than what we find about us now.
    NASA,NOAA, AAAS, IPCC, or you.

    Which is more credible?
    Many Trump supporters have lots of problems, and those deplorables are bringing those problems to us. They’re racists. They’re misogynists. They’re islamophobic. They're xenophobes and homophobes. And some, I assume, are good people.

  4. #264
    Sage
    Oftencold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    A small village in Alaska
    Last Seen
    05-09-14 @ 12:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    5,044

    Re: 2001-2010 was the warmest decade since records began

    Quote Originally Posted by Threegoofs View Post
    NASA,NOAA, AAAS, IPCC, or you.

    Which is more credible?
    I get no money, nor career advancement, nor job security nor tenure, nor promotion for repeating the "predictions" that will grant vast economic and political power to a set of ruling elites to whom I am subservient. You may draw certain obvious conclusions from that alone.

    Further, you previously made a common, although highly misapplied appeal to "science." What you are doing here though is to make an appeal to institutional integrity. It is not an inherently invalid nor weak argument, but you should not mistake it for a "scientific" one.
    Quod scripsi, scripsi

  5. #265
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,237

    Re: 2001-2010 was the warmest decade since records began

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Which one of the many people who have contended that the sun doesn't matter? I don't know, take your pick.

    or, if you prefer, perhaps you can find someone who says that the sun doesn't exist, but then, that was someone else's post, wasn't it?
    Maybe my choice of words is poor. They place it as insignificant, when it is significant.

  6. #266
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,237

    Re: 2001-2010 was the warmest decade since records began

    Quote Originally Posted by Morrigi View Post
    How do you know that the changing output of the sun matters as much as you think it does? How much experience do you have in astronomy or physics? Are you an ecologist? Where is your evidence that the sun alone has been causing an increase in temperature over the past 150 years?


    And before you go on about how the sun has been increasing in output over decades, if you do any research you will find that nuclear fusion does not work that way in something as unimaginably massive as a star.
    Studies with poxy data have shown the sun to vary greatly over the last several centuries. The IPCC conveniently picks 1750 as their starting timeline to show industrialization has the effect they claim, when solar energy started increasing in 1713 after the maunder minima. During this time, if you take Lean et. al. 2000, and the supplemental 2005 additions, you find the sun has increased by 0.18% This is not talking a low to high solar cycle, but that much from the 11 year average. This is all backed up by other studies, though they have differing results. They all agree there are marked increases in the suns output. There is a growing consensus that the change is more like 0.24% as the sciences are more and more understood..

    As your link correctly points out, even satellite data isn't certain because of instrument drift. The latest two SOURCE satellites with TIM and other equipment has the best calibrated equipment to date, and also has equipment seeing deeper into the shortwave spectrum. The trend from the start of satellite measurements shows a very marginal decrease.

    Simply physics equations prove that a 0.18% increase in solar radiation gives a much larger increase of radiative forcing than the IPCC claims. The actual calculations are about 8 times larger for solar than the IPCC claims, because they only include the "direct forcing." They ignore the "indirect forcing."

    The numbers have nothing to do with fusion, but more the magnetic changes in the sun. Scientists have noted short and long term cycles, and have predicted the solar output to be decreasing through at least the next two solar cycles, and some say we may enter a cooling as great as the maunder minima was.

    As for the simple math of the sun. If we took at solar TSI vs. temperature and assign any number, I'll use 1360 W/m^2, to correspond to a global average of 15 Celsius, and increase the TSI by 0.18%...

    15 C = 288.15 K

    Watts to surface temperature is a fourth root/power of four function.

    1.0018^0.25 = 1.00045

    288.15 x 1.00045 = 288.28

    288.28 = 273.15 = 15.13

    15.13 - 15 = 0.13 degree increase, just for that 0.18% solar increase.
    This is already 20% of what the IPCC is claiming for a temperature increase, but they claim the suns increase is only 7.2% of the radiative forcing increase (0.12/1.66 = 7.2%).

    However, it isn't that simple to go from no atmosphere to an atmosphere. When the IPCC stops lying to us, I might start believing them.

    This 0.18% conveniently equates to a 0.12 W/m^2 forcing, directly absorbed by the atmosphere. take a look at this:



    This is an accepted earth energy budget at the time of the AR4. Please note that the sun is also partially reflected, and absorbed by the surface. Any increase in surface absorption will be proportionally reemitted as upward IR. The greenhouse effect will also be affected proportionally. Changes in greenhouse gas level are not linear, but the output is linear to the input of power. This simple graph shows the actual change of direct and indirect forcing to be 0.93 W.m^2. Not just the 0.12 W/m^2. When you compare that to the 1.6 W/m^2 claimed for forcing increases since 1750, you see it is 58% of the forcing change. The sun has the greatest influence.

  7. #267
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,237

    Re: 2001-2010 was the warmest decade since records began

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    The AWG Cult has now surpassed the Scientologists as the most brainwashed bunch going.
    LOL...

    That's good!

    I need a sig, can I use that?

  8. #268
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,237

    Re: 2001-2010 was the warmest decade since records began

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord of Planar
    15.13 - 15 = 0.13 degree increase, just for that 0.18% solar increase.
    This is already 20% of what the IPCC is claiming for a temperature increase, but they claim the suns increase is only 7.2% of the radiative forcing increase (0.12/1.66 = 7.2%).
    I do wish to acknowledge a slight error here. Not going to bother fixing it since no atmosphere vs. atmosphere doesn't really compare anyway.

  9. #269
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,237

    Re: 2001-2010 was the warmest decade since records began

    Before anyone discounts my above work, I want you to remember I work within the realm of what the alarmists say, using their work, to disprove their work.

    There is a funny thing about their claim as well, vs claimed temperature. They claim a 1.6 W/m^2 increase if forcing since 1750 using a baseline around 492 W/m^2. This is only a 0.325% increase in forcing, and known sciences put this at only a 0.22 degree increase. There are many of us who say the calibrations given to temperature monitering station in regard to urban heat islands is incorrect.

    What if we only have increased in temperature by the calculated 0.22 degrees, and the corrections given to monitoring stations is incorrect?

  10. #270
    Quantum sufficit

    Threegoofs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The birthplace of Italian Beef
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,539

    2001-2010 was the warmest decade since records began

    Ill discount your work without reading it.

    If its so groundbreaking that it invalidates the entire scientific structure of AGW, I'm sure PNAS will publish it.


    Awaiting your definitive disproof of gravitation next.
    Many Trump supporters have lots of problems, and those deplorables are bringing those problems to us. They’re racists. They’re misogynists. They’re islamophobic. They're xenophobes and homophobes. And some, I assume, are good people.

Page 27 of 37 FirstFirst ... 172526272829 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •