Just a little quick question:
What is/are the AAGW? All I can find with Google are links to the BABB and informations about "The Association of Albanian Girls and Women", which I for some reasons think might not be what you are talking about...
Established Member
Just a little quick question:
What is/are the AAGW? All I can find with Google are links to the BABB and informations about "The Association of Albanian Girls and Women", which I for some reasons think might not be what you are talking about...
Established Member
i understand... no problem. perhaps i was a bit defensive as well, and this is certainly a topic that gets me going.Originally Posted by Fram
i think had i been concentrating on motive and debating the merits of the socialist view, yes, it would have been a political point. i was not, however. my intention was simply to point out that the economic model of socialism requires resource control, which provides motive for socialist leaning individuals in their policies, be they social, economic or political. my primary concern was simply the economic impact of climate control, which must be considered when disucssing global warming.I still think what you discuss is politics (and economics), but not solely economics), and some of your definitions are different from mine and those I am used to. Some of your points of view seem to optimistic as well.
nah. you certainly forced me to put some more meat behind my intentions and motivations. definitions aren't really the issue, i don't think. more of relative extremes. i see the minimum wage as "extreme" socialism, as an example, just because my base point is really, to a point, true capitalism. to me, the french economy is as close to true socialism as it gets in the world!However, I was too harsh.
edit: keep in mind, had i been critiquing socialism or weighing the pros and cons vs. capitalism, political discussion certainly would have been in play. i purposely did not do that, though i have clearly since made my views apparent. however, even that was only to point out my intentions with the classification "extreme."
i kinda got the impression you were more of a devil's advocate in this debate, true. the first mention of chirac, btw, was almost as an authoritative "Jacques Chirac is saying this, and they're going to have a meeting therefore it must be true" argument which is why i commented. in reality, noting the appeal to authority was probably enough on my part without mentioning the socialist motivation. i threw it in simply because economic motivations are relevant, for and against this issue.One more point: I am not an AAGW defender. I don't know (yet) which side to believe, they both have good arguments and authorities (and I'm not referring to Chirac here :-) ).
you are entitled to your opinion. and i have no problem defending mine, even if i don't always provide enough supporting information (more of a convenience than anything). a lot of that, i believe, was really provided by dgruss and glom anyway, and i try to put the same evidence into context of my own perception.But I had a feeling that you were making wrong arguments, and that's why I reacted.
taks
Established Member
apocalyptic, anthropgenic global warming.
AAGWs are those that believe in it. for reference, the "consensus" global warming scene is not AAGW, just AGW. the apocalyptics typically are dismissed by most rational people, e.g. those that blamed the tsunamis on GW got a little press time, then were laughed off as quacks.
i'm not talking about albanian women now, but there have been those times... uh, wait, never mind. wrong board. ahem.
taks
Established Member
Is difficult to keep boys on subject, no? :wink:i'm not talking about albanian women now, but there have been those times... uh, wait, never mind. wrong board. ahem.
taks
Established Member
sometimes. like when i was in vegas last week and... oh.
taks
Insert awesome title here
LOL. I've noticed that quite a bit, especially on sites like RealClimate. One particular example had them trying to explain away the serious issue of the carbon lag. They said that warming was started by other factors, but carbon dioxide took over 800 years later. What was particularly stupid about this was that they still need to explain what ends the warming and what causes the cooling. Lord William of Occam must have been spinning in his grave when he heard that one.
Of course, it's important to note that other factors cannot be included in climate models because we don't know what they're going to do, so in that way the simulations are far from complete. In this way, we cannot, as some would have us do, accept that these dire predictions will happen with "near to 100% scientific certainty".
So yes, they invoke complexity when they need to explain why the theory hasn't worked but ignore it so that they can tell us to accept their predictions as guaranteed truth.
Established Member
there would certainly be more credibility if more models agreed with each other as well, and researchers such as mann didn't cherry pick only the models that support his hypothesis.
taks
Insert awesome title here
That's another issue. The range of predictions coming from models with slightly different inputs is quite large. The recent talk over confirmation of warming in the troposphere based on recalibration of satellite data brought the numbers slightly closer (although not close enough for validation) to the milder models that don't predict much to concerned about. However, it is common for the advocates to say that we should take the severe models seriously, even though they're not the ones standing any chance of being validated. There is a sleight of hand going on.
Established Member
no kidding... it's actually painful to watch science be distorted by phd's no less. somewhere along the line you just have to pull your head out of your ideological... well, you get the picture.
taks
Established Member
and just because a model is milder, doesn't make it right, either. if we're actually due for some huge cooling as a result of this sun activity thing, even those will be reporting negative correlations!
taks
Established Member
More stuff that shows space might be a big player in climate.
Some Aussie scientists studied the breakup of a 1000 tonne asteroid in our atmosphere (did n't know we regularly got them that big!) and the accompanying effects.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/26/shooting_stars/
Goes to show that the GW boys are modelling the climate without all the parameters in the model just yet.
Insert awesome title here
Not to mention a lack of understanding of cloud formation and completely screwed up economics scenarios that frankly wreak more of trying to generate political favourable results that realistic ones.
Established Member
edit... never mind.
taks
Established Member
how is this surprising. the problem with complex feedback models, too, is assessing the true impact of the various pole/zero combinations. drive one tiny, low impact pole to an unstable region and the whole model blows up. the biggest impactors will cause the system to function as expected in steady state conditions, but when transitions happen (as all the parameters are moving around), predictability is lost.
taks
Established Member
Folks here's the IPCC's model on Man Made v Natural warming.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm
It does seem prima facie to be strong evidence. Any comments?
Established Member
pretty plots, for sure, but only address temperature changes at best... and still show no consideration for correlation vs. causation. note that only solar variation and volcanic activity are considered "natural." also, is that solar heat or all solar activity?
as for the "observed" temperatures, are they still relying on the bristlecone pine data which has proven to be invalid? have they ever removed the impact of heat islands (city warming)? also, if these models are the same ones used for 2001 IPCC, then they are already suspect in my book. they ended up running several models, and then chose the ones that fit their theory, rather than vice versa. the statistical methods used also tend to create "hockey sticks" even when gaussian (normal) data is input...
taks
UPDATE: Yes, this is the famous hockey stick graph. it has been debunked. it turns out that there were several problems, particularly heavy reliance on bristlecone pine tree rings. in particular, sometimes entire decades of data were based on a single tree. also, the statistical methods were shown to create "hockey sticks" regardless of data. mann is on record saying that he agrees the methods were incorrect, but believes that his results will be proven the same with other methods. no dogma there... nope.
Insert awesome title here
Given the lack of understanding of various cosmic influences as well as water circulation, both in terms of the effects of convective transfer and cloud formation (the IPCC admits understanding is "low" to "very low"), those graphs wiff of fitting the models to the desired outcome. In other words, they took the data, subtracted out what they wanted the anthropogenic effects to be and displayed the results as the natural forcings. IOW, it's like you need to get 11 as a sum of two numbers. In reality, those numbers might be 10 and 1, but because you want one of the numbers to be 7, you assume that it is 7 and then hence derive the other number to be 4. Of course, this is a circular argument.
Okay, so it's not as simple as that but these models are so sensitive that a small change in parameters leads to large changes in outcomes. So, it's so much that there was no science involved in developing the natural forcing model. They started with the limited understanding of natural forcings to develop a model and then made small alterations in parameters fit the results to the observations, while at the same time preserving the desired presumptions about anthropogenic forcings.
Of course, the IPCC has played with many models and this doesn't mean that they knowingly fiddled the numbers on one model to get the result (although given their dubious practices eg the Chris Landsea scandal I wouldn't put it past them) as much as displayed the model that got the answer they wanted because it had those parameters. It's kind of like Darwin for climate models.
We know that the IPCC has employed these methods when it comes to economic forecasts (fiddling the numbers until they got the scarey climate they wanted).
Still, we must note the caveat at the bottom that this corrolation does not validate the models. We must give the IPCC more credit than the politicians and journalists who broadcast their work, for at least retaining a semblence of scepticism.
So let me get this straight. Centuries of evidence pointed to the reality of the MWP and LIA. MBH concluded they didn't exist. Mann admits that the methodology that led to that conclusion was crapola but still says that the conclusion, which has only been reached by a crapola study, is inevitably true. Global warming is indeed a religion. All you need is faith.
It's no wonder even the House of Lords concluded that the IPCC's objectivity is suspect.
Established Member
to that last bit, yes... mckittrick and mcintyre paper was published, finally, in april i believe? mann, et. al. followed it up with several statements.
what really chapped my hide, was that it turns out mann's original work for the IPCC (done in '98 ) was never peer reviewed until this year. this is the seminal global warming work if there ever was one, and nobody bothered to see if it held scientific muster. over the years, various groups have tried to gain access to the data, and mann refused. he is now under investigation and AAGWs are calling it a witch hunt.
taks
Established Member
mcintyre's website.
statistics abound. there's some ARMA models i'm going to play with in a bit (i have written my own in the past)...
taks
Insert awesome title here
AAGWs are calling it a witch hunt. Are these the same AAGWs who brand any who dares question the orthodoxy of being shills for Big Oil, GWB and little puppy murderers?
Established Member
yes... they think mann, et. al. are being "harried" by requests to peer review their data. apparently they believe that the peer review process is not necessary for unimpeachable "scientists" such as mann. mcintyre works in the hard rock industry or something, btw... so he is an obvious shill.
another funny point, btw, is that M&M have thoroughly criticized mann's research and methods. mann, however, is criticizing M&M with ad hominems. granted, this is not necessarily an indication of a flawed argument, but generally speaking, the first person to lob insults has the weaker case.
taks
Order of Kilopi
Since links to BABB threads don't work, I'm adding the link to the "What's with the animosity towards climate change advocates" thread:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=15376&page=1
It was an important discussion on this topic that should not be lost.
Established Member
agreed...
taks
Banned
There are three components to temperature changes on earth that might be considered.
1. Human activity. Increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
This means gradual increase over the last century or so with some slight fluctuations.
2. Solar variations. Fluctuations on a scale of decades. These changes have been measured for a few decades and are known to be related to the height of sunspot cycle peaks. This is in turn known to relate to the sunspot cycle period which we have data for several thousand years (from chinese observations and aurora observations). Shorter sunspot cycles ==> higher sunspot maximum ==> higher temperatures on earth. From these relationships it is well established that the sun is responsible for a significant part of global warming. A sensible estimate is half or perhaps slightly more.
3. Milankovitch climate cycles. We are facing a huge dive in global temperatures some time in the next thouand years. Exactly when is unknown, but it happens fast when it happens. These factors depend on the earth's orbital and axis variations.
Of the above three, only the 2nd point applies to other planets also. Therefore any detection of variations on Mars confirms the 2nd point above.
Ray Tomes
Banned
>> There are three components to temperature changes on earth that might be considered. >>
add at least the major one
and
that would be oil
you know oil and water don't mix, and oil on water is a disaster for the Earth's hydrology.
Established Member
We have been burning "garbage" and letting it play havoc with our atmosphere for so long now that it has to be the primary cause of global warming! I don't think there could be any argument about that.
Will the tragedy in America have any effect on our local Australian politicians? I doubt it! It's about time serious efforts were made to repair the damage.
Established Member
boy, hard to argue with that science.
why don't you read the rest of the thread. the rest of us posted meaningful and scientifically debatable thoughts... "I don't think there could be any argument about that" is hardly scientific, let alone debatable. quite the contrary, btw, there is an argument about that.
arguing that something is detrimental just because it is lacks scientific rigor, to say the least. this is the biggest problem with the science surrounding global warming, as has been discussed in the thread. it is politicized, and has become dogma for many. remove such things from the debate, and maybe we can decide whether or not point #2 mentioned above is really the climate forcer.
taks
Administrator
I am glad to see this discussion getting back to the topic (global warming on other planets).
One thing that was not present in the article that started this thread (two years ago) was any mention of what time scale the global warming of Mars might be. On the graphs for Earth, the supposed anthropogenic rise in temperature covers a period of about sixty years. We have nothing that tells us whether what the paper is describing covers ten years, a hundred years, a thousand years, or more. Mars might be experiencing global warming, but we only have instrumentation that could tell us even low resolution data about this for the last five or six years.
I am curious to know if there are other studies that could be seen as relatively accurate measures of Solar System warming trends over the last twenty to sixty years. Where would it be most evident? An expansion of Titan's atmosphere? Increase in the aparent diameter of Venus' cloud layers? Surely there would be other places to look for this. I'm looking for ideas about this. Who's got some.
Forming opinions as we speak
Established Member
my guess would be no. at least, the best we could do is guess.
even defining the "global temperature" on our own planet is sketchy science at best. and we live here.
perhaps. of course, continued warming might not be required for these things, either. once a certain relative temperature is reached, melting or cloud expansion will not cease if the warming stops... the same could be said for the earth. once it was warm enough (after the last ice age) for melting, it will continue until it gets cold enough to stop. but even that is a simplistic view of climate.Where would it be most evident? An expansion of Titan's atmosphere? Increase in the aparent diameter of Venus' cloud layers? Surely there would be other places to look for this. I'm looking for ideas about this. Who's got some.
at the distances we are from other heavenly bodies, rough averages actually may be better indicators than we are capable of here. odd as that may seem.
taks
Order of Kilopi
But this is exactly where the Earth's system is very relevant to this discussion. As discussed, the influence of the variation in solar flux is insufficient to account for the observed warming. However, there are two additional roles the solar cycle plays. When solar activity is high, the solar wind is stronger which deflects (1) cosmic rays and (2) potentially interstellar dust.
Cosmic rays influence upper level cloud formation - and therefore have a net cooling effect. So when the sun is near sunspot minimum in addition to the lower energy output, the Earth experiences a greater cooling from cloud formation induced by cosmic rays.
A more controversial idea I read was that when the sun is less active, less interstellar dust is deflected by the solar wind. If this dust gets in the atmosphere then it may induce additional cooling by blocking sunlight.
So during the solar cycle you have two well established and perhaps a third factor that work together directionally to influence climate. But do these factors work the same on Each planet. Venus is already so heavily covered with clouds that the influence of cosmic rays may be undetectable. The atmosphere of Mars is so thin relative to the Earth's that again these other effects may be much less detectable.
This is not merely a question of the solar variations. The geophysical and climatological conditions of each planet must be considered to determine what might be expected.
Posting Permissions
