Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 5
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are about 3 or 4 people on "my side" who are asking you direct questions in this very thread. The evidence is mounting. Oceans not warming, upper atmosphere cooling, climate models wrong. The theory of anthropogenic warming has not produced a correct prediction that I can recall. Usually, in all the science I have ever studied, that would mean the theory would be discarded, to be replaced by a better theory. A theory that could accurately and dependably predict what was going to happen.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
There are about 3 or 4 people on "my side" who are asking you direct questions in this very thread. The evidence is mounting. Oceans not warming, upper atmosphere cooling, climate models wrong. The theory of anthropogenic warming has not produced a correct prediction that I can recall. Usually, in all the science I have ever studied, that would mean the theory would be discarded, to be replaced by a better theory. A theory that could accurately and dependably predict what was going to happen.

I answered the questions posed by palomino pony.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
I answered the questions posed by palomino pony.

I'm working on getting more detailed information for you, gc... In fact, I went directly to the source and I'm hoping Dr. Marohasy will be able to answer any questions you have. In fact, I understand she's waiting for her account to be approved as I write this.

gc, I must admit I find it rather amusing to watch your circuitous attempts to pretend insult and your sudden desire for "respectful debate" after I turned your own tactics back on you. Tell you what... if you desist in using the "since you haven't answered" schtick, I will desist as well. Actually, I will likely desist regardless since I find such tactics provocative and, as such, unsuited to my idiom.

-Mac
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
gc, I must admit I find it rather amusing to watch your circuitous attempts to pretend insult and your sudden desire for "respectful debate" after I turned your own tactics back on you. Tell you what... if you desist in using the "since you haven't answered" schtick, I will desist as well. Actually, I will likely desist regardless since I find such tactics provocative and, as such, unsuited to my idiom.

If you were insulted by that comment, then I apologize, but your opening post seemed to be based on the premise that the earth has warmed since 1998 (that is the part of the article that you quoted). I simply pointed the problem with using 1998 as a reference point. You never tried to refute that argument, and instead went on to accuse me of using a strawman, so I assumed that you agreed with me. I still don't think you've stated whether you agree with that point or not. So I'll ask you now, do you agree that there is a problem with using 1998 as a reference point (in other words, that just because the earth is cooler now than it was in 1998 doesn't mean that the earth isn't warming)?
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
If you were insulted by that comment, then I apologize, but your opening post seemed to be based on the premise that the earth has warmed since 1998 (that is the part of the article that you quoted). I simply pointed the problem with using 1998 as a reference point. You never tried to refute that argument, and instead went on to accuse me of using a strawman, so I assumed that you agreed with me. I still don't think you've stated whether you agree with that point or not. So I'll ask you now, do you agree that there is a problem with using 1998 as a reference point (in other words, that just because the earth is cooler now than it was in 1998 doesn't mean that the earth isn't warming)?

Thank you for the apology but I wasn't insulted (I'm virtually insult-proof... occupational hazard) however such tactics are provocative, polarizing and contribute nothing. Perhaps you live in a monochromatic (either/or) world but my reality is much more colourful.
I correctly identified your stock market analogy as being a strawman fallacy. If you have a problem with that, don't use strawman fallacies!

To address your "point", I don't believe there is any advantage in picking arbitrary dates as high or low points since we're talking about a continuum. If you want to argue that the earth getting colder is irrelevant to global warming, have at 'er!

As Mike McB correctly pointed out (and you ignored) the warmest year in recent history was 1934 and that temperature measurement was done before the land-based stations being used to measure temperature started to give inaccurate readings because they've been enveloped by development which raises the local temperature but not the regional temperature.

-Mac
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
To address your "point", I don't believe there is any advantage in picking arbitrary dates as high or low points since we're talking about a continuum.

Sorry, but does this mean you agree with my point or not?
Quote:
If you want to argue that the earth getting colder is irrelevant to global warming, have at 'er!

I'm arguing that the earth is NOT getting colder. It's only getting colder if you use 1998 as your reference point.
Quote:
As Mike McB correctly pointed out (and you ignored) the warmest year in recent history was 1934 and that temperature measurement was done before the land-based stations being used to measure temperature started to give inaccurate readings because they've been enveloped by development which raises the local temperature but not the regional temperature.

The data I found on the internet showed 1998 as the warmest year on record, but let's say you're right. That doesn't change the argument because 1998 was still an abnormally warm year anyway you look at it.
casper35





Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 99
Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The problem gc is that that the computer models that the IPCC are using are being proved wrong. Human CO2 emissions have been rising since both the 1998 and the 2002 start date. The IPCC models predicted that ocean and tropical troposphere temperatures should be rising because of this - but they are not. The observed data in nature is significantly different from the human created computer models. Logic and adherence to the scientific method would conclude that the simulated models are incorrect. Then scientists would try to find out why, come up with new theories, defend them against critics etc. At the very least the proponents of the CO2 theory should advise the public and politicians to be cautious about doomsday predictions because the science of climate change is still evolving. But not the AGW "science is settled" crowd because it is not about science. It is about their ideology, reputations, business opportunities and power. In order to continue the charade they must suppress, ignore and attack anything or anyone that threatens their theories or solutions.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

casper35 wrote:
The problem gc is that that the computer models that the IPCC are using are being proved wrong. Human CO2 emissions have been rising since both the 1998 and the 2002 start date. The IPCC models predicted that ocean and tropical troposphere temperatures should be rising because of this - but they are not. The observed data in nature is significantly different from the human created computer models. Logic and adherence to the scientific method would conclude that the simulated models are incorrect. Then scientists would try to find out why, come up with new theories, defend them against critics etc. At the very least the proponents of the CO2 theory should advise the public and politicians to be cautious about doomsday predictions because the science of climate change is still evolving. But not the AGW "science is settled" crowd because it is not about science. It is about their ideology, reputations, business opportunities and power. In order to continue the charade they must suppress, ignore and attack anything or anyone that threatens their theories or solutions.

First of all let me point out that there are two separate issues: a) global warming and b) anthropogenic global warming. So far in this thread we have focused only on global warming, but if you are willing to concede that the earth is warming then I would be happy to have a debate on anthropogenic global warming (otherwise it would probably make more sense to debate one issue at a time).
As for the computer models and calculations being wrong, I'd have to look at them in more detail. If they are wrong though, then there must be something more going on than contributions from CO2, which makes sense because the climate is so complex that it would be difficult to take all the factors into account. But just because we don't know everything about the climate (there are probably way too many factors) doesn't mean that the earth isn't warmer now than it would be if CO2 concentrations were lower. The best analogy I can think of is thinking of a weighted coin that lands on tails most of the time (let's say 60% of the time). The fact that it is weighted means there is a preference for it to land tails, however there are so many other factors at play, such as how it is thrown, wind etc. that it would be very difficult to predict which way it will land. I know it's probably not the best analogy, but it's the best I can think of right now off the top of my head. Also keep in mind that if you throw the coin 10 times pear year, you may have some years where you get 6 heads and 4 tails and there may be others where you get 8 tails and 2 heads, but overall you should get more than half (ie about 60%) being tails.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
Sorry, but does this mean you agree with my point or not?

Sorry, it means your "point" cannot be simplified to a yes/no answer. Should I mention oversimplification of a concept is a form of fallacy?

gc wrote:
I'm arguing that the earth is NOT getting colder. It's only getting colder if you use 1998 as your reference point.

You're arguing but you're not offering any evidence whatsoever to prove your assertion. Am I supposed to accept your "say so"?

gc wrote:
The data I found on the internet showed 1998 as the warmest year on record, but let's say you're right. That doesn't change the argument because 1998 was still an abnormally warm year anyway you look at it.

Lack of knowledge and/or searching skills on your part does not constitute evidence. Last year, a Canadian blogger named Steve McIntyre proved NASA's temperature calculation methodology was flawed. He demonstrated this to NASA and they've adjusted their data.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1880 (Steve's blog)

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt (NASA's adjusted figures)

Year Old New
1934 1.23 1.25
1998 1.24 1.23
1921 1.12 1.15
2006 1.23 1.13
1931 1.08 1.08
1999 0.94 0.93
1953 0.91 0.90
1990 0.88 0.87
1938 0.85 0.86
1939 0.84 0.85

-Mac
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
Sorry, it means your "point" cannot be simplified to a yes/no answer. Should I mention oversimplification of a concept is a form of fallacy?

I remember in another thread you criticized me for not answering your question to your satisfaction... but at least I tried.
Either you agree that short-term fluctuations are not important to the overall picture, or you think that they are important (these are usually the people who say "it was warm today, must be global warming!" or "it was cold today, that proves the earth is not warming!"). I don't know any other way you could answer that question, but if you have a different answer, or your answer lies somewhere in between those two answers, feel free to express your opinion...

Quote:
You're arguing but you're not offering any evidence whatsoever to prove your assertion. Am I supposed to accept your "say so"?

Here is just one example of data showing that the earth has warmed. Link . I could probably post a lot more as well. I know you'll probably take issue with that data, so feel free to post some data which suggests that the earth is NOT warming.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
If they are wrong though, then there must be something more going on than contributions from CO2, which makes sense because the climate is so complex that it would be difficult to take all the factors into account. But just because we don't know everything about the climate (there are probably way too many factors) doesn't mean that the earth isn't warmer now than it would be if CO2 concentrations were lower.


There are many people arguing that yes, there is something else going on besides contributions from CO2. In fact,there is lot of research out there showing that C02 has such a small effect on global temperature as to be meaningless. The debate, and research, into what drives warming and/or cooling will be (or should be) ongoing.

The bottom line is that there is not nearly enough evidence supporting anthropogenic impact, and plenty enough evidence refuting it, that calls for anything other than more research are baseless.
casper35





Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 99
Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc, I am aware of the difference between GW and AGW. I am talking specifically talking about AGW theory and the IPCC computer models. They are being proven incorrect. Yet the foundation for Kyoto, carbon taxes, carbon markets etc are all based on these IPCC computer models. The public, who will be most affected by the CO2 agenda, have the right to be aware that much of the "settled science" is falling apart. Instead we have a deafening silence from most of the MSM. The same MSM that trumpets every other weather/climate event as proof of AGW. Shame on the MSM for not being more honest and balanced. Their customers, the public, is being done a great disservice. It is always sad when ego gets in the way of integrity. There needs to be a full, open and honest discussion on this issue so people can makeup their own mind based on all the facts not fictional propaganda like " The Inconvenient Truth".
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
I know you'll probably take issue with that data, so feel free to post some data which suggests that the earth is NOT warming.


Well this is this, but I'm not sure if it is what you meant: Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

DailyTech wrote:
A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time.

That is precisely the kind of argument that I take issue with, and which I have been trying to explain throughout this thread! You can't look at one single year and proclaim that the earth is cooling anymore than you can look at one warm year and proclaim that the earth is warming. I'm saying look at the long term trend and you'll see that the earth is warming.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
The bottom line is that there is not nearly enough evidence supporting anthropogenic impact, and plenty enough evidence refuting it, that calls for anything other than more research are baseless.

Where is the evidence that refutes it?
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 5

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


climate facts to warm to...

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB