Climate Change

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

The sun plays a "small part" in warming the earth?

You're serious, aren't you......

That is a quote from Stanford.

Most of the earth's energy comes from the sun, but sun's activities plays an insignificant role in global warming.

Unless you speed read, I assume you did not read the link.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

This epitomizes misrepresentatiion.

In the field of peer-reviewed science the currency of that article is a factor.

The Principia Scientific International is a joke. Even Anthony Watts dismisses them:



New WUWT-TV segment: Slaying the ‘slayers’ with Watts | Watts Up With That?

Principia what'sit didn't write the paper. They reported on the NASA paper.

Refute the NASA data if you like, but give up the ad hominem attacks. They're getting tedious.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That is a quote from Stanford.

Most of the earth's energy comes from the sun, but sun's activities plays an insignificant role in global warming.

Unless you speed read, I assume you did not read the link.

When someone actually is willing to write that the sun's activities play an insignificant role in warming the earth, I need read no further, anymore than I need investigate further a claim by someone that they are Napoleon.

Were the sun a steady state source of constant energy, one might wonder why the earth would warm up. However, the sun's output has not only dramatically changed over time (more energy today), but over shorter periods throws massively differential amounts of energy at the earth. Couple that with an elliptical orbit around the sun that changes over 100,000 year cycles and one has to be a complete fool to make a statement like the above.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Since the UN IPCC has been shown to falsify their data, as has Michael Mann, does it follow that all research coming from Pitt or funded by the UN is bogus?

Again, lacking credible data to support your position, you resort to character attacks. Pretty scurrilous, really.

I think you had better provide some evidence that IPCC and Mann falsifies data.

This how Mann responds to being smeared.

Michael Mann v. National Review et al. defamation lawsuit – new Plaintiff’s briefs | Climate Science Watch

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

However, the sun's output has not only dramatically changed over time (more energy today), but over shorter periods throws massively differential amounts of energy at the earth.

Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years. These precise observations show changes of a few tenths of a percent that depend on the level of activity in the 11-year solar cycle. Changes over longer periods must be inferred from other sources. Estimates of earlier variations are important for calibrating the climate models. While a component of recent global climate change may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The effects of global climate change are apparent (see section below) despite the fact that the Sun is once again less bright during the present solar minimum. Since the last solar minimum of 1996, the Sun's brightness has decreased by 0.02% at visible wavelengths, and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths, representing a 12-year low in solar irradiance, according to this NASA news article (April 1, 2009).

Milkanovitch cycles have been correlated very well to temperature, but right now we should be cooling as a result of those cycles.

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by conachair

Interesting piece on how it works..

Eur J Pub Hea

"Denialists are usually not deterred by the extreme isolation of their theories, but rather see it as the indication of their intellectual courage against the dominant orthodoxy and the accompanying political correctness, "


" Whatever the motivation, it is important to recognize denialism when confronted with it. The normal academic response to an opposing argument is to engage with it, testing the strengths and weaknesses of the differing views, in the expectations that the truth will emerge through a process of debate. However, this requires that both parties obey certain ground rules, such as a willingness to look at the evidence as a whole, to reject deliberate distortions and to accept principles of logic. A meaningful discourse is impossible when one party rejects these rules. "

I dont deny this as being true...

[Wrong]

This thread is symbolic of why some things seem to never change. People talking past each other, citing all sorts of references that support one or another's point of view.

Meanwhile, the same people who are poor will remain poor. You can argue that growth will raise them out of poverty, but with a few exceptions it does not. Gentrification of neighborhoods eventually brings the cost of rent and home ownership to levels beyond the reach of original inhabitants who are forced to find shelter elsewhere. Or, if they can't, become homeless.

Meanwhile, religious conflict - no matter how subtle or severe - continues to separate believers from non-believers and give justification to the rise of armed conflict.

These are just a few of the uncountable problems we don't appear to be able to resolve, and are counted among the most intractable challenges that burden humanity.

Some things don't need debate to realize a solution must be found.

Some things are easier to identify than others. Air and water pollution (population, culture), traffic grid lock (population, culture), shortages in affordable shelter (population, culture), malnutrition (population, unequal and or inefficient distribution of food and culture), on and on.

If you do not believe global warming is causing ice bergs to melt and large chunks of ice to break away. If you do not believe global warming is causing species of every type to move away from areas they have occupied toward new locations. If you believe these things can occur without a rise in global temperatures.

They are actually happening. Not invisible or imaginary.

How do you explain them?

Even if you cannot scientifically explain, or at least agree upon the scientific evidence, can you see they are happening?

Why is it so difficult to recognize empirically that human activity may be responsible? If one can at least consider the possibility, and he or she is a rational being, isn't taking steps to ameliorate the situation the prudent thing to do?

Doing nothing is imprudent.

[savoir]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I think you had better provide some evidence that IPCC and Mann falsifies data.

This how Mann responds to being smeared.

Michael Mann v. National Review et al. defamation lawsuit – new Plaintiff’s briefs | Climate Science Watch

Michael Mann falsifies lots of things.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by savoir

Michael Mann falsifies lots of things.

Attachment 65786

That is huge, almost criminal. New definition of "lots" = "one".

Andrew Weaver had the same issue.

Current page

Michael E. Mann

[savoir]

One of the climategate emails commenting on Mann

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

[RedHerring]

Originally Posted by S/V Alchemy

I somehow think those same Chinese won't be so quick to clean up their oil spills when the inevitable shipwrecks happen, however.

Navigation of "Northern Seaway" (which is all within Russian territorial waters) is going on since 1935. The only thing that's new in the last few years is foreign vessels in arctic convoys. They still need to be smallish (by the standards of merchant shipping) vessels with an ice class.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by savoir

One of the climategate emails commenting on Mann

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

That quote is from an email by Phil Jones.

Using real temperatures - now that is a trick/

University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit Director Phil Jones wasn't "hiding" anything that wasn't already being openly discussed in scientific papers. He was using a "trick"—a technique—published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

This email exchange from 1999 seems to refer to scientists examining past climate data and communicating with one another about it. In particular, Jones is talking about how scientists compare temperature data from thermometers with temperature data derived from tree rings. Comparing that data allows scientists to derive past temperature data for several centuries before accurate thermometer measurements were available. The global average surface temperature since 1880 is based on thermometer and satellite temperature measurements.

The "trick" is actually a technique (in other words, a "trick of the trade") used in a peer-reviewed, academic science journal article published in 1998. "Hiding the decline," another phrase that has received much attention, refers to another technique used in another academic science journal article. In any case, no one was tricking anyone or hiding anything. Rather, this email exchange shows scientists communicating about different ways to look at the same data that were being discussed at the time in the peer-reviewed literature. Later the same data were discussed at length in a 2007 IPCC report.

In some parts of the world, tree rings are a good substitute for temperature record. Trees form a ring of new growth every growing season. Generally, warmer temperatures produce thicker tree rings, while colder temperatures produce thinner ones. Other factors, such as precipitation, soil properties, and the tree's age also can affect tree ring growth.

The "trick," which was used in a paper published in 1998 in the science journal Nature, is to combine the older tree ring data with thermometer data. Combining the two data sets can be difficult, and scientists are always interested in new ways to make temperature records more accurate.

Tree rings are a largely consistent source of data for the past 2,000 years. But since the 1960s, scientists have noticed there are a handful of tree species in certain areas that appear to indicate temperatures that are warmer or colder than we actually know they are from direct thermometer measurement at weather stations.

"Hiding the decline" in this email refers to omitting data from some Siberian trees after 1960. This omission was openly discussed in the latest climate science update in 2007 from the IPCC, so it is not "hidden" at all.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Delfin

The sun plays a "small part" in warming the earth?

You're serious, aren't you......

If you have read the report could you point to be which page that is on.

I can't find it.
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun...09RG000282.pdf

Also, Judith Curry is one of the more cautious climate scientists around. Interesting post here.. (Ir)responsible advocacy by scientists | Climate Etc.
On an attempt to apply some guidelines on advocacy.

This paper scored very highly using those guidelines
http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFile...4294972962.pdf

Using this as foundation for discussion perhaps you could briefly point out where the royal society have gone wrong.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Well... I'm no Greenie... I'm just a mourner who travels looking for new places coz the places I've visited that were once beautiful are now f**ked... I remember the Hindu Kush as a kid in the 50's... I remember Antigua, Grenada and Trinidad in the 60's... S Africa, Mozambique, the Deccan Plateau of S. India... real life... not some Google search on scientific ******** that sings the song required by the sponsor of research..
The human race has shot its bolt and all that's left are the 'Cash Cow's' looking after themselves and trying to get rich enough for their own dome...
But hell... I'll be dead soon enuf so do I care... not really... but its still sad to see what short sighted "I'm so clever" twats have done... and continue to do..

Back in the 50's and 60's Dad used to take me places and say "Just wanted you to see this before its gone. I've seen so much go, so much change in my life."

Wise man, for the time. Miss him.

He was s conservative as you get. But he was an outdoorsman, tone time a guide. He measured change with his eyes.

Spot on Boatman, don't go too soon, we need the perspective.

[hpeer]

Delrin,

I really don't know what to say to you. Clearly we are on different sides, but for the life of me I can't get where you are coming from.

I going to delve into pure opinion for this post only.

You have been given a plethora of good advice and been consistently directed to decent sources of information. Yet none of it seems to move you. Nor can you simply seem to let it lie, but you keep coming back with more and more discredited information.

What drives you man?

Do you really think thr the good folks here on CF are in come kind of weird conspiracy, out to get you? Are we all really that dumb?

I can understand having a contrary point of view, I also understand the futility of trying to ram it down the collective throat. Why do you persist?

Those concerned with warming see a danger to our future. What danger do you see? Do you really think that being concerned with GW threatens humanity? Or does it just in convince you?

I just don't get where you are coming from. It strikes me as a very weird obsession.