Climate Change? Of course. Which way?

Kursed Satan said:
so what? i live in canada and its fucking cold in the winter, so bring it on global warming
Click to expand...

You know, that's an interesting point. Because, if it is warming, there will be regiions that will certainly benefit. Canada would gain
profit from a year round Northern Passage.
 
Doer said:
You know, that's an interesting point. Because, if it is warming, there will be regiions that will certainly benefit. Canada would gain
profit from a year round Northern Passage.
Click to expand...


...this has been a strange year in weather here. I mean, unseasonably warm. We've had other years without snow for the holidays etc... but the warmth is a bit 'off' to me.

*also makes for hellish snow roads in the north. That's the lifeline for the reserves.
 
There is a contingent of anti's who are claiming that the warming trend halted in the late 90's - they, quite simply, are misinformed. 2010 tied for the hotest year on record.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/

The next warmest years are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009 now that would handily make this the warmest decade.
 
canndo said:
There is a contingent of anti's who are claiming that the warming trend halted in the late 90's - they, quite simply, are misinformed. 2010 tied for the hotest year on record.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/

The next warmest years are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009 now that would handily make this the warmest decade.
Click to expand...

Well, the BEST study found some serious problems with available datasets in general. They also found 1/3 of the stations reported cooling during the study period.

And obviously the author of this article knows on which side his bread is buttered. The problem is GW is supposed to be a runaway negative feedback in the Cloud Effect. And closed loop feedback was discounted early, on very little evidence. It was inconvienent. The political banner was taken up and the march was on.

But, Cloud Effect studies continued, data gathered. Later satalite data was added. When satalite data was added, the models didn't line up. More research into the Effect have shown mixed results. The more data and modeling, the more new effectors are uncovered. Now, even gravity waves have been shown to possibly affect global albedo. The CLOUD study at CERN showed even more effectors, such as the concentration of suphuric acid mist.

Now try as they might, there is only a weak negative feedback that can data corralate in some models. No one can show a corralated model of runaway negative feedback. That's hardly proof of GW, much less AGW.
 
Doer said:
Well, the BEST study found some serious problems with available datasets in general. They also found 1/3 of the stations reported cooling during the study period.

And obviously the author of this article knows on which side his bread is buttered. The problem is GW is supposed to be a runaway negative feedback in the Cloud Effect. And closed loop feedback was discounted early, on very little evidence. It was inconvienent. The political banner was taken up and the march was on.

But, Cloud Effect studies continued, data gathered. Later satalite data was added. When satalite data was added, the models didn't line up. More research into the Effect have shown mixed results. The more data and modeling, the more new effectors are uncovered. Now, even gravity waves have been shown to possibly affect global albedo. The CLOUD study at CERN showed even more effectors, such as the concentration of suphuric acid mist.

Now try as they might, there is only a weak negative feedback that can data corralate in some models. No one can show a corralated model of runaway negative feedback. That's hardly proof of GW, much less AGW.
Click to expand...

No one is talking about WHY it is warmer, cloud effect, changes in albedo, sunspots or whatever. I can't see where NASA would really care "which side of it's bread is buttered".
 
canndo said:
No one is talking about WHY it is warmer, cloud effect, changes in albedo, sunspots or whatever. I can't see where NASA would really care "which side of it's bread is buttered".
Click to expand...

As to the author of the article, NASA staff or not, he has deliver to what NASA will accept and get paid for the butter for his bread. Most of us do that.

However, I notice the clear bias. That's the politics, though NASA, since they found ocean cooling at every depth in a 3 year study, are on the fence,
unoffically, it seems to me.

Now to be far, he is quoting the bias of the GISS guy's buttered bread, but that's how you become a "fair" journalist.

"If the warming trend continues, as is expected, if greenhouse gases continue to increase, the 2010 record will not stand for long," said James Hansen, the director of GISS.

The linkiing of these two concepts say, DONE DEAL. That's bias to quote it that way and not follow up with a "real" journalist's, "Studies continue to show a yet unproven link...", or some such.

But, "studies" have shown, one man's bias is another man's straight reporting. It depends on your bias.

And Canndo, if we don't know WHY , or even IF (questionable data integrity,) we don't know WHAT affects the atmosphere. The heat isn't going into the oceans. So, I believe we don't know why the atmosphere behave this way or that. It's the crux of what we are talking about.
 
Doer said:
As to the author of the article, NASA staff or not, he has deliver to what NASA will accept and get paid for the butter for his bread. Most of us do that.

.
Click to expand...

Doer, I don't publicly lie for my employer. I wonder sometimes at those who dismiss articles or studies they don't agree with as lying in order to be paid. If that is truely the case then we can not believe anything any reporter, scientist or writer claims as they are all paid to expound on some aspect of reality. Moreover, those who so easily accuse others of lying for financial gain are often those who would indeed do it themselves. The world is not made up of the truth and those who lie about it, it is a much more complicated mix. I have stated that if we weigh lies by how much money is behind the lie the GW naysayers will lose every single time as there is far more money vested in the status quo than in any opposing viewpoint.
 
canndo said:
Doer, I don't publicly lie for my employer. I wonder sometimes at those who dismiss articles or studies they don't agree with as lying in order to be paid. If that is truely the case then we can not believe anything any reporter, scientist or writer claims as they are all paid to expound on some aspect of reality. Moreover, those who so easily accuse others of lying for financial gain are often those who would indeed do it themselves. The world is not made up of the truth and those who lie about it, it is a much more complicated mix. I have stated that if we weigh lies by how much money is behind the lie the GW naysayers will lose every single time as there is far more money vested in the status quo than in any opposing viewpoint.
Click to expand...

Wow, how the bias flies. I said nothing about lying. I, therefore never implied that world is made up of the truth and those who lie about it. Nor do I then deserve the condecension of, "it is a much more complicated mix." Bias compounds bias. But, you do think we are suppose to turn in work acceptable to our
employers, right?
 
Doer, I perceived canndo's response as to the point. When you say "turn in work acceptable to one's employer", the immediate/obvious way for me to interpret that is: when there is a conflict between an emerging apparent fact and established doctrine in alignment with the employer's policies, whatever they may be ... the requirement is to go with policy and not truth. No conflict? No issue. If you mean something otherwise ... imo it becomes incumbent on you to be quite clear about what you mean. Instead you chose to lambaste canndo for what I see as a completely honest interpretation of your post. So ... before I give in to the temptation to disagree with you on how I am reading your posts, why don't you tell us ... what do you really mean? cn
 
cannabineer said:
Doer, I perceived canndo's response as to the point. When you say "turn in work acceptable to one's employer", the immediate/obvious way for me to interpret that is: when there is a conflict between an emerging apparent fact and established doctrine in alignment with the employer's policies, whatever they may be ... the requirement is to go with policy and not truth. No conflict? No issue. If you mean something otherwise ... imo it becomes incumbent on you to be quite clear about what you mean. Instead you chose to lambaste canndo for what I see as a completely honest interpretation of your post. So ... before I give in to the temptation to disagree with you on how I am reading your posts, why don't you tell us ... what do you really mean? cn
Click to expand...

Lambaste??? What is going on here? I mention journalistic bias and foilks act like that doesn't ever happen. It's just a side track. I never said lying. How can piutting charged words in my mouth be "a completely honest interpretation." Let's drop it. No one seems prepared to discuss editorial policies. What is truth? You act only truth is reported. Of, course, in every professional journalistic endevour, there is a review. And of course, the requirement is go with policy. It's not lying, it's bias. It's editorial. Get it? Edit? It's the grand tradition of freedom of the press. Nothing wrong with it. It's only incorrect if we forget.

Side track. The isssue is HOW the atmosphere behaves. WHAT are the effectors? WHY do it do what it do? Questionable dataset make make for historical insignificance. Cloud Effect is still unknown for HOW, WHAT and WHY.
 
Doer said:
Wow, how the bias flies. I said nothing about lying. I, therefore never implied that world is made up of the truth and those who lie about it. Nor do I then deserve the condecension of, "it is a much more complicated mix." Bias compounds bias. But, you do think we are suppose to turn in work acceptable to our
employers, right?
Click to expand...

"As to the author of the article, NASA staff or not, he has deliver to what NASA will accept and get paid for the butter for his bread. Most of us do that." - Shall we examine the bounds of "acceptable to his employer"? I doubt you are talking about margin width or elements of style. Either the data indicates that the earth is warming, or it does not. Should an employer expect a particular response in spite of the data, that would likely be suborning untruth or lying. I suspect but do not know, that NASA and most scientific organizations expect the truth, without bias. There are many scientists who would not work for any organization that does othewise.
 
My bad for bringing in a discussion on bias. There are a lot of sublties regarding editorial policy in action. Stance projection is an arcane art that has nothiing to do with truth or lies. It's stance.

But, let's stick to the point about Cloud Effect and WHY the atmosphere behaves as it does. In other words, we don't know, right?

We are still calmly studying it.
 
Doer said:
My bad for bringing in a discussion on bias. There are a lot of sublties regarding editorial policy in action. Stance projection is an arcane art that has nothiing to do with truth or lies. It's stance.

But, let's stick to the point about Cloud Effect and WHY the atmosphere behaves as it does. In other words, we don't know, right?

We are still calmly studying it.
Click to expand...


I have done some looking into this cloud effect and there are some who maintain that this effect is not self regulating because water vapor is a green house gas. More clouds means more water vapor in the atmosphere and thus more trapped heat, the change in albedo from cloud cover may not be enough to overcome this effect. Furthermore, if you are dealing with essential albedo, then the loss of polar and other ice can also offset the cloud cover. Now there are others who claim that the cloud effect is the cause of global warming - this seems akin to those who claim that co2 increases follow warming rather then preceeding it.

http://www.prwatch.org/spin/2011/08/10943/study-about-clouds-effect-global-warming-debunked


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080611184722.htm

(by the way, stance has nothing to do with data)

We know as much as we need to know currently to see that our climate is warming. We know for a fact that Co2 is increasing and has increased over the period of time we as humans have been burning fossil fuels. We know what the composition of the atmosphere was long before we started measuring it directly and we can surmise what the mean temperatures were several millions of years ago down to the present. This is all data and this data tends to support the notion that our climate is warming, and man has a major part to play in that warming. Some can argue that other mechanisms play a part but that is irrelevent. classicaly, global warming deniers fall into several categories - formost are the ones who are not schooled in climatology but happen to have a phd in some other field. There are others who, like creationists, do not contribute to the debate with their own research but rely on poking holes in other's research as though if they can prove other's findings false, their own hypothisis must be true - false logic and lazy science. Finally there are the incremental deniers. Their reasoning is far fetched. "there is no global warming, and if there is, man didn't do it, and if he did, we can do nothing about it anyway so why try" this approach is so full of logical falsehoods that it is tough to know where to start but the point is that we can tell simply by that incrementalism that they have an ideological basis for their opinion that has nothing to do with the findings of genuine science.
 
Canndo ... afaik the ice-core data show a lag of hundreds of years between global temperature (isotopic) and atmospheric pCO2. This datum is key to keeping me "on the fence" in re AGW. You're suggesting it has been debunked. I would appreciate a link if so ... cn
 
lol its a logical false hood to take the agnostic stance?


choosing to say we dont know is actually a better choice then just agreeing wildley to the bilion of theory's out there


and canndo i was school in climatology infact my school was one of the first use doppler for research


now that said....


my choise in saying that we dont know and may not know isnt logical falsehood

its logical deduction that if theres amillion A's that could have caused B

Then B could be about because of one A or the combination of some the A's

by a's i mean theorys

\
 
Unnk said:
lol its a logical false hood to take the agnostic stance?


choosing to say we dont know is actually a better choice then just agreeing wildley to the bilion of theory's out there



\
Click to expand...

Note that I didn't say that, I said incrementalism is not logicaly sound - if for no other reason than it is inherently based upon the presumption that man is exempt from the mechanism.
 
Yes, yes. It still skirts the issue. The side that has decided, has decided to excoricate, label and be-little and marginalize those that say we don't know. Such an attitude.

That's very obvious in these threads. If we as much as question the other sides fervent belief that the earth is warming, we are treated like cults have treated non-believers throughout history. If it was just scientific debate, no one would be sending out survey for consensus. That is simply creating momentum behind a global political agenda.

So, I see a lot of duck dodge and weave, But still, there is a difference of professional opinion about the parameters and strengths of various Cloud Effects and we could easily be in the last of the inter-Ice Age warming cycle. Ice is a big part of cloud effect. Water vapor is the largest component, by far of the atmosphere that could be called a "greenhouse gas.' But, you realize, even that term is not proven. There are only conjectures as to what gasses could cause the greenhouse effect and nothing is known about how Cloud Effect could mitigate that and be a closed loop system in the long run.

I too would like to see more about the CO2 cycles and warming cycles. I don't think we can so easily dismiss this point..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top