Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
The arrogance of mankind is what never ceases to amaze me. To believe we can 'control' nature is absurd.
APP - The BBC asks "where's global warming?"
- Thread starter tinfoil
- Start date
The arrogance of mankind is what never ceases to amaze me. To believe we can 'control' nature is absurd.
Oh, I think we'll be able to one day in the far future once this fledgling science comes somewhat to fruition.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
According to Back to the Future Part II, by 2015 we will be able to control the weather, and the weather service will be more efficient than the post office.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Asking the question you have, only proves that you're an idiot.
It woiuld seem that the only one who isn't aware, of what has been referred to as The Three Gorges Dam, is you.
I do enjoy it, when youi Chinese masters force you to defend their actions, up to and including the murder of Chinese farmers that were FORCED to surrender their land and move.
Massive fail on your part.
Lowaicue
英語在香港
Asking the question you have, only proves that you're an idiot.
It woiuld seem that the only one who isn't aware, of what has been referred to as The Three Gorges Dam, is you.
I do enjoy it, when youi Chinese masters force you to defend their actions, up to and including the murder of Chinese farmers that were FORCED to surrender their land and move.
Massive fail on your part.
Ah. The Three Gorges Dam which I have not visited. You did not say ... very remiss of someone as well informed as you. Not the Xiao lang di dam on the Yangxe which I have visited or any of the other dams which are either in their planning stages or under construction.
Now then, do you have a question or a point or do you just think you are being smart?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
AWWWWWWWWWWW, gee.
Now NoIQ claims ignorance; but then that particular piece of evidence was self evident.
YOU FAIL, again.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
based on this historical data, predict whether the temperatures over the next fifty years are going to go up or go down....it can't be done from this or any other data.....all we can logically conclude is that in all likelihood, our future holds colder temperatures.....
Last edited:
Cloud cover vs temp
http://www.climate4you.com/images/LowCloudCoverVersusGlobalSurfaceAirTemperature.gif
Cloud cover vs cosmic ray flux
http://www.theresilientearth.com/files/images/Cosmic_rays_and_cloud_cover-marsh.jpg
... cosmic rays collide with water vapor and cause condesation and cloud formation.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/LowCloudCoverVersusGlobalSurfaceAirTemperature.gif
Cloud cover vs cosmic ray flux
http://www.theresilientearth.com/files/images/Cosmic_rays_and_cloud_cover-marsh.jpg
... cosmic rays collide with water vapor and cause condesation and cloud formation.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
OH NOEZ?@ TEH ARROGANCE OF MANKING?!
That totally frees you from having to make a ratioanl, evidence based argument about global warming! Good job!
Lowaicue
英語在香港
AWWWWWWWWWWW, gee.
Now NoIQ claims ignorance; but then that particular piece of evidence was self evident.
YOU FAIL, again.
Why don't you tell us all about US dams? I mean, you DO actually LIVE in the USA, don't you? (Don't google, I'm sure you have enough knowledge to leave everyone flabbergasted. I just hope you haven't had a hand in pouring any of the concrete! We both know what I am referring to, don't we?)
Lowaicue
英語在香港
If you are referring to me I must crave indulgence and humbly apologise. The gentleman to whom I spoke has done nothing, for the last five years (I really dont know how long), other than make inane comments about 'my Chinese masters'. He is clearly a little man but size notwithstanding he has made enemies of almost every ex poster at WOT some of whom have actually quit and gone elsewhere.
I will do my best not to respond in future.
Lowaicue
英語在香港
If you are referring to me I must crave indulgence and humbly apologise. The gentleman to whom I spoke has done nothing, for the last five years (I really dont know how long), other than make inane comments about 'my Chinese masters'. He is clearly a little man but size notwithstanding he has made enemies of almost every ex poster at WOT some of whom have actually quit and gone elsewhere.
I will do my best not to respond in future.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Troll.... FAIL
Lowaicue
英語在香港
I would not take a position on the existence in man's mind of a deity. It is an argument that is unlikely to be won. My position on global warming is, like I suspect the vast majority of mankind, moot. You may challenge that or ignore it at your leisure. I am certainly conceited but do not possess enough of that quality to be able to conduct a reasoned debate for or against the idea of global warming, cooling or staying the same.
I'm sure you can carry all before you in such a discourse and win the day. Then we can all, in the words of Evelyn Waugh, 'Put Out more Flags'.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
It is worth reminding people that Roald Amundsen navigated the Northwest Passage in 1905 in a 47 ton wooden fishing boat. So when anyone tells you that the Arctic is melting for the first time in human history, ask them to explain how he was able to achieve this astounding feat?
Last edited:
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
It cracks me up sometimes how hard people work to disconnect nature from the effects of industrial pollution and CO2 emmissions. If you hang in their and point out their convoluted logic, they just close their minds and repeat only what supports their contentions against the idea that there must be major changes in how we live and work and produce material in order to NOT enhance the natural occurences of the planet.
Cracks me up how you ignore the data presented in the thread.
Which is why this site is a troll site. you folks never ever address the data I present.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Okay, one more time for the cheap seats:
The vast majority of folks who are pointing out global warming are NOT disputing that the Earth has natural changes in it's temperature or atmosphere. What they are pointing out is that the two centuries of exponentially increasing industrial pollutants, urbanization and deforestation have heightened the natural course of things to an uncoming dangerous level. My simple questions and logic are consistently side stepped by the global warming nay sayers, because in order for their CO2 theoretical gymnastics to work they have to omit certain factors. Like it or not, what I pointed out is a matter of fact that is learned in grade and high school science. Trees, forests, greenery and the ocean are major CO2-oxygen exchangers. Screw that up (deforestation, urbanization, pollution) and you have problems like a slight acceleration of the melting of cold regions on the planet, etc.
What you presented DOES not alter those facts.
October 9, 2009
Yamal cherry picking
[I'm late on the Yamal tree ring story -- 'been away for two weeks -- but I'm including it here for completeness]
"Most of the proxy data does not show anything unusual about the 20th century. But two data series have reappeared over and over that do have a hockey stick shape. One was the flawed bristlecone data that the National Academy of Sciences panel said should not be used, so the studies using it can be set aside. The second was a tree ring curve from the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia, compiled by UK scientist Keith Briffa.
Briffa had published a paper in 1995 claiming that the medieval period actually contained the coldest year of the millennium. But this claim depended on just three tree ring records (called cores) from the Polar Urals. Later, a colleague of his named F. H. Schweingruber produced a much larger sample from the Polar Urals, but it told a very different story: The medieval era was actually quite warm and the late 20th century was unexceptional. Briffa and Schweingruber never published those data, instead they dropped the Polar Urals altogether from their climate reconstruction papers.
In its place they used a new series that Briffa had calculated from tree ring data from the nearby Yamal Peninsula that had a pronounced Hockey Stick shape: relatively flat for 900 years then sharply rising in the 20th century. This Yamal series was a composite of an undisclosed number of individual tree cores. In order to check the steps involved in producing the composite, it would be necessary to have the individual tree ring measurements themselves. But Briffa didn’t release his raw data.
Over the next nine years, at least one paper per year appeared in prominent journals using Briffa’s Yamal composite to support a hockey stick-like result. The IPCC relied on these studies to defend the Hockey Stick view, and since it had appointed Briffa himself to be the IPCC Lead Author for this topic, there was no chance it would question the Yamal data.
Despite the fact that these papers appeared in top journals like Nature and Science, none of the journal reviewers or editors ever required Briffa to release his Yamal data. Steve McIntyre’s repeated requests for them to uphold their own data disclosure rules were ignored.
Then in 2008 Briffa, Schweingruber and some colleagues published a paper using the Yamal series (again) in a journal called the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, which has very strict data-sharing rules. Steve sent in his customary request for the data, and this time an editor stepped up to the plate, ordering the authors to release their data. A short while ago the data appeared on the Internet. Steve could finally begin to unpack the Yamal composite.
It turns out that many of the samples were taken from dead (partially fossilized) trees and they have no particular trend. The sharp uptrend in the late 20th century came from cores of 10 living trees alive as of 1990, and five living trees alive as of 1995. Based on scientific standards, this is too small a sample on which to produce a publication-grade proxy composite. The 18th and 19th century portion of the sample, for instance, contains at least 30 trees per year. But that portion doesn’t show a warming spike. The only segment that does is the late 20th century, where the sample size collapses. Once again a dramatic hockey stick shape turns out to depend on the least reliable portion of a dataset.
But an even more disquieting discovery soon came to light. Steve searched a paleoclimate data archive to see if there were other tree ring cores from at or near the Yamal site that could have been used to increase the sample size. He quickly found a large set of 34 up-to-date core samples, taken from living trees in Yamal by none other than Schweingruber himself! Had these been added to Briffa’s small group the 20th century would simply be flat. It would appear completely unexceptional compared to the rest of the millennium [see graph].
Combining data from different samples would not have been an unusual step. Briffa added data from another Schweingruber site to a different composite, from the Taimyr Peninsula. The additional data were gathered more than 400 km away from the primary site. And in that case the primary site had three or four times as many cores to begin with as the Yamal site. Why did he not fill out the Yamal data with the readily-available data from his own coauthor? Why did Briffa seek out additional data for the already well-represented Taimyr site and not for the inadequate Yamal site?
Thus the key ingredient in most of the studies that have been invoked to support the Hockey Stick, namely the Briffa Yamal series, depends on the influence of a woefully thin subsample of trees and the exclusion of readily-available data for the same area. Whatever is going on here, it is not science." "Ross McKitrick: Defects in key climate data are uncovered"
-
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/10/yamal-cherry-picking.html
Posted by jblethen at 10/09/2009
Yamal cherry picking
[I'm late on the Yamal tree ring story -- 'been away for two weeks -- but I'm including it here for completeness]
"Most of the proxy data does not show anything unusual about the 20th century. But two data series have reappeared over and over that do have a hockey stick shape. One was the flawed bristlecone data that the National Academy of Sciences panel said should not be used, so the studies using it can be set aside. The second was a tree ring curve from the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia, compiled by UK scientist Keith Briffa.
Briffa had published a paper in 1995 claiming that the medieval period actually contained the coldest year of the millennium. But this claim depended on just three tree ring records (called cores) from the Polar Urals. Later, a colleague of his named F. H. Schweingruber produced a much larger sample from the Polar Urals, but it told a very different story: The medieval era was actually quite warm and the late 20th century was unexceptional. Briffa and Schweingruber never published those data, instead they dropped the Polar Urals altogether from their climate reconstruction papers.
In its place they used a new series that Briffa had calculated from tree ring data from the nearby Yamal Peninsula that had a pronounced Hockey Stick shape: relatively flat for 900 years then sharply rising in the 20th century. This Yamal series was a composite of an undisclosed number of individual tree cores. In order to check the steps involved in producing the composite, it would be necessary to have the individual tree ring measurements themselves. But Briffa didn’t release his raw data.
Over the next nine years, at least one paper per year appeared in prominent journals using Briffa’s Yamal composite to support a hockey stick-like result. The IPCC relied on these studies to defend the Hockey Stick view, and since it had appointed Briffa himself to be the IPCC Lead Author for this topic, there was no chance it would question the Yamal data.
Despite the fact that these papers appeared in top journals like Nature and Science, none of the journal reviewers or editors ever required Briffa to release his Yamal data. Steve McIntyre’s repeated requests for them to uphold their own data disclosure rules were ignored.
Then in 2008 Briffa, Schweingruber and some colleagues published a paper using the Yamal series (again) in a journal called the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, which has very strict data-sharing rules. Steve sent in his customary request for the data, and this time an editor stepped up to the plate, ordering the authors to release their data. A short while ago the data appeared on the Internet. Steve could finally begin to unpack the Yamal composite.
It turns out that many of the samples were taken from dead (partially fossilized) trees and they have no particular trend. The sharp uptrend in the late 20th century came from cores of 10 living trees alive as of 1990, and five living trees alive as of 1995. Based on scientific standards, this is too small a sample on which to produce a publication-grade proxy composite. The 18th and 19th century portion of the sample, for instance, contains at least 30 trees per year. But that portion doesn’t show a warming spike. The only segment that does is the late 20th century, where the sample size collapses. Once again a dramatic hockey stick shape turns out to depend on the least reliable portion of a dataset.
But an even more disquieting discovery soon came to light. Steve searched a paleoclimate data archive to see if there were other tree ring cores from at or near the Yamal site that could have been used to increase the sample size. He quickly found a large set of 34 up-to-date core samples, taken from living trees in Yamal by none other than Schweingruber himself! Had these been added to Briffa’s small group the 20th century would simply be flat. It would appear completely unexceptional compared to the rest of the millennium [see graph].
Combining data from different samples would not have been an unusual step. Briffa added data from another Schweingruber site to a different composite, from the Taimyr Peninsula. The additional data were gathered more than 400 km away from the primary site. And in that case the primary site had three or four times as many cores to begin with as the Yamal site. Why did he not fill out the Yamal data with the readily-available data from his own coauthor? Why did Briffa seek out additional data for the already well-represented Taimyr site and not for the inadequate Yamal site?
Thus the key ingredient in most of the studies that have been invoked to support the Hockey Stick, namely the Briffa Yamal series, depends on the influence of a woefully thin subsample of trees and the exclusion of readily-available data for the same area. Whatever is going on here, it is not science." "Ross McKitrick: Defects in key climate data are uncovered"
-
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/10/yamal-cherry-picking.html
Posted by jblethen at 10/09/2009
Last edited: