|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: joker_man]
#8102415 - 03/04/08 05:36 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred, can you give us the link to the source where you obtained these graphs?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_Temperatures_and_Climate_Factors_since_1895.pdf
It's worth reading the entire article. Tons more graphs, extensive bibliography of references.
Phred
--------------------
|
zorbman
blarrr


Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Phred]
#8102598 - 03/04/08 06:16 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Getting back to the political aspect of this, if I were sitting on a Senate subcommittee trying to decide whether or not to cripple America's economy further ...
Phred, why do you say that a serious attempt at tackling climate change will result in a "crippled economy"? Is that science or an assumption on your part?
If it is an assumption, what do you base it upon?
It seems to me that it would just as likely create jobs from new technologies created to reduce greenhouse gasses. Those new technologies may in turn lead to other unforseen applications elsewhere followed by economic growth due to increased efficiencies as we have seen in the past with other technological advancements such as seen in the Space Race which helped create computers which in turn spawned other applications and industries.
What makes you so certain that this effort would cripple the economy?
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
#8102898 - 03/04/08 07:20 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
> It seems to me that it would just as likely create jobs from new technologies created to reduce greenhouse gasses.
It might open up new industries, but overall jobs will be lost, not gained, as companies cut costs where they can to comply with new pollution standards.
> such as seen in the Space Race which helped create computers which in turn spawned other applications and industries
The space race had almost nothing to do with the advancement of computer technology. The cold war, and nuclear weapon design, pushed the early days of computers more than any other factor.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
zorbman
blarrr


Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Seuss]
#8103592 - 03/04/08 09:40 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
overall jobs will be lost, not gained, as companies cut costs where they can to comply with new pollution standards.
I would like to see some corroboration of that claim rather than seeing it continually repeated as an unquestioned fact. For example, the space program is frequently cited as an expense when in reality it has been an investment, paying for itself many times over in the form of technological spinoffs.
This picture shows some of the technologies that the space program has helped create or contribute to the development of:

Here is another site showing spinoff technologies spawned by our investment in space: http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html#computer
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
|
carbonhoots
old hand

Registered: 09/11/01
Posts: 1,351
Loc: BC Canada
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: zorbman]
#8103659 - 03/04/08 09:56 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
You know it how works, the big companies are here to provide jobs and services and goods to the people. Then the government gets in there, with their regulations, and the big comapanies are forced to lay people off in order to pay for the government's interference in what would otherwise be a free market.
-------------------- -I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: carbonhoots]
#8103675 - 03/04/08 10:00 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
God forbid the top 10% of the population that own 90% of the country ever took the loss for once instead of the middle class.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: zorbman]
#8103755 - 03/04/08 10:23 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zorbman said:
Quote:
overall jobs will be lost, not gained, as companies cut costs where they can to comply with new pollution standards.
I would like to see some corroboration of that claim rather than seeing it continually repeated as an unquestioned fact. For example, the space program is frequently cited as an expense when in reality it has been an investment, paying for itself many times over in the form of technological spinoffs.
This picture shows some of the technologies that the space program has helped create or contribute to the development of:

Here is another site showing spinoff technologies spawned by our investment in space: http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html#computer
um, yeah
cuz the most efficient way to design shit is to decide we must spend as much as it takes to accomplish some task of only peripheral relation to the technology we're trying to develop, with government bureaucracy, little accountability to the folks who have to pay, and plenty of gigantic expenses that don't have anything to do w/ the various technologies we're developing.
I don't see how any of those things mentioned required us to launch people or things into space.
come on now... water filtration, flat panel display, car phones, long range broadcast/networking how does any of those technologies depend upon launching things into space? That's like saying you're glad you drove your family off a cliff during a road trip, cuz it allowed for important advancements in automotive engineering.
space shuttles may depend on those technologies, but that doesn't mean the development of those technologies depends on space ====
Quote:
I would like to see some corroboration of that claim rather than seeing it continually repeated as an unquestioned fact.
do you agree the economy has finite resources at a moment in time? Do you agree that the wealth of a company must come from its customers and its means of production? Its not like resources (and thus value, whatever medium you choose to represent it in, we'll go with the value of the dollar of today as an example) are infinte at a point in time. When someone gets paid, that comes from someone else. That is a measure of value.
When a company produces things valued at x numbers of dollars, then they are required to spend .2x on a government program that bears nothing profitable to the company, the company loses money.
Now you may say that this company will get really efficient at their program, and maybe even sell implementations to other companies likewise forced to adopt this program, but in the end, that's just passing around an economic burden. So while the first company might benefit due to the government-mandated market, the second company loses.
And when you tak a look at the economy in total, its a loss, cuz people are being forced to spend money on things that have no value independent of government regulation. They are not investments that create more value over time.
Its like the government requiring you to purchase 2 tons of bark a year for a ridiculous price. Sure, someone will make money off of it, but the economy as a whole will suffer, all else being equal, as the bark isn't worth what is being paid for it, and that is less money that can be used to create more dollar's-worth of value- whatever the company would otherwise be doing with the money
|
carbonhoots
old hand

Registered: 09/11/01
Posts: 1,351
Loc: BC Canada
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: johnm214]
#8103810 - 03/04/08 10:34 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I'd like to see supernovasky comment on this thing about how CO2 concentrations don't have much more potential to increase heat. That their concentrations can go up and up but the heating effect levels off.
It seems a little fishy that something so obvious has escaped the consideration of climate scientists, who should know all about that.
-------------------- -I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES
|
carbonhoots
old hand

Registered: 09/11/01
Posts: 1,351
Loc: BC Canada
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: fireworks_god]
#8103884 - 03/04/08 10:47 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
God forbid the top 10% of the population that own 90% of the country ever took the loss for once instead of the middle class.
You know how that works...the other 90% of the population are losers, who are indebted to the 10% of the population for establishing and sustaining the country. They provide jobs, pay more in tax in a year then losers do in a lifetime. The rich are rich because they work harder and contribute more to society.
The elites will leave the country before they take a hit, then the 90% of the population who depend on their gracious leadership would be fucked, with no job, and no wealth as the elites will take it with them when they leave, if they can.
If you need proof, just look at Zimbabwe.
-------------------- -I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES
|
zorbman
blarrr


Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: johnm214]
#8103932 - 03/04/08 11:00 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I see what you are saying and agree with some of it. However, I would still like to see some official studies projecting the potential economic impact which could have one of three outcomes: it could be a net expense, investment or a wash. And two of those three would be good things.
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: carbonhoots]
#8104934 - 03/05/08 05:58 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I know.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
AnonymousRabbit
Comrade


Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: carbonhoots]
#8105145 - 03/05/08 08:24 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Well guys, I really have argued pretty much everything involving the science. Here is a graph showing the correlation between Sunspots and CO2:

Here is the graph of solar irradiance, which for some reason, his non-cited, non-peer reviweed graph shows as correlating with temperature increase... judge for yourself how this correlates with temperature increase:

He's just intentionally muddying the issue.
I really dont know where Phred's guy gut his solar irradiance graph, but mine is from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007. You can read to see THEIR observations about correlation between CO2 and temperature.
Also notice that his graphs stop in 2000. That is because the Solar Irradiance breaks down nearly completely, the longer you look at the graph. Right now, after all, and in the past few years, we are seeing some of the most warming when irradiance is at a minimum.
Anyhow, as far as PDO and AMO, unless those graphs appear in a peer reviewed source that shows its data, I really can't argue for or against it. They could be using completely-off fitting methods, pulling erronious data, and using data manipulation, of the likes that is usually caught once it makes it through peer review. It's written for a completely anti-global-warming site that has certainly not submitted and been accepted to any legitimate journal, I wonder why...

source: http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
Notice how his graphs smoothed out the PDO so much, that dramatic dips in the PDO (the like that are NOT seen with CO2) were removed. For CO2, there are no such dips. These correlations that he made, with their phony r^2 values, are outright false. Also, the AMO and PDO automatically have global warming signal removed.
So in essence, the paper is bunk, and thats why it hasnt made it into peer review.
Just like it was bunk that 1934 was the hottest year.
I'll take care of the physics part a little later, to adress your first few points on CO2. I'll say you're wrong, but that's to be expected, right? I just dont have time to type up a response to that right now, as I typed up this response in between lectures. As far as me not being around last night, I thought the science part of the debate was over, and was also pretty wasted because Obama lost Ohio and kind of squeeked by in Texas last night, heh.
Edited by AnonymousRabbit (03/05/08 02:57 PM)
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Phred]
#8105185 - 03/05/08 08:44 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: I must point out again (though the Warmenists will again ignore it) that prior to 1880 the Earth's temperature changed many, many times by a lot more than a degree Fahrenheit in a lot less than 120 years. What mechanism was responsible for all those hundreds (or thousands or tens of thousands) of swings of more than a degree? It sure as shit wasn't human activity. Even the Warmenists have to admit that.
Not to turn the debate back towards science, but since there is now discussion of the political ramifications of developing green industries and whatnot, and since this is the thread in which this has all gone down, I thought I'd like to take this statement and ask another one of my little questions to hopefully wring ten more pages out of this thread.
Which instances are you referring to? Any specific examples? Weren't events like the Maunder Minimum demonstrated to correspond with a marked decrease in sunspot activity, whereas this warming event has no real relation with it? Are there any examples in history, the thousands of times it has warmed in a similar manner, in which it is actually demonstrated that sunspot activity wasn't responsible? Similarily, where is the data that points towards thousands of similar increases in such a manner?
I'm asking everyone, not specifically Phred.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
AnonymousRabbit
Comrade


Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! *DELETED* [Re: Phred]
#8105706 - 03/05/08 11:13 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Post deleted by AnonymousRabbit
Edited by AnonymousRabbit (03/05/08 02:53 PM)
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: zappaisgod]
#8106750 - 03/05/08 04:00 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Yes, I've mentioned this in other threads most notably about the bullshit artist Hansen who got caught with his thumb on the scale. A quick Google search of "Nasa restates temperature data 1930 hottest" turns up lots of hits but the most succinct is this Washington Times article. http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070815/EDITORIAL/108150004
Quote:
Here's what we know: The National Climatic Data Center reported in mid-January that 2006 was the hottest year on record. Then, in May, it revised the numbers, concluding that 1998, in fact, was the hottest on record. NASA's old numbers echoed that last contention. But last week, it emerged that NASA had quietly restated its numbers, without fanfare or so much as a press release, after a blogger pointed out faulty methodology. Now, per NASA: 1934 is hottest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and 1931.
I can't remember who it was who caught Hansen's error. I'll look through my bookmarks. This will do for now.
Why does supernovasky keep lying about what I said? How can this be construed as me misrepresenting anything , especially since I provided a link to the entire article (heh) in the original post.
Quote:
supernovasky said
This brings me back to an old arguement, because this is just a rehashing of something that you (Phred) and Zappa did earlier that got me very angry. You both said that 1934 was the hottest year on record, and misrepresented US data as representative of WORLD warming.
I misrepresented nothing. But Hansen did. He went on a national tour whining about how he was being censored by the Bushthugs. Whined thruogh a megaphone that he was being censored. Hansen, NASA, GISS. Restated data twice because they were wrong. Maybe, if they had censored him more they wouldn't have ended up being discredited. Peer review breaks down when some peers are more equal than others.
There are some clear facts: 1. CO2 concentration rose 30% (290 to 380) in the last century 2. Global temperature has increased 0.6C in the last century. 3. CO2 concentration rose 15% in the last decade. 4. Global temperature has not increased at all in the last decade.
Does this prove anything? Nope. But you have to be a daft bitch (or someone with an agenda) to believe that there is anything remotely conclusive either way on global warming and CO2. Absent any real conclusive proof that we are 1) making the planet warmer 2) that there is anything bad about that AND 3) that we can do anything about it anyway it seems utterly insane to stop doing what has made us so enormously successful as a species
Quote:
CO2, however, is currently considered the most significant forcing, with the highest correlation.
Fucking unbelievable that you persist in confusing correlation with causality. Sad, actually.
--------------------
|
joker_man
Stranger



Registered: 11/14/05
Posts: 217
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: zappaisgod]
#8106872 - 03/05/08 04:32 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|

You can't save your dignity in this debate with another straw man argument and more ad hominem attacks.
It absolutely kills me (with laughter) that you act like you don't have an agenda yourself. You are trying to find any way possible to "prove" (in your eyes) that anthropogenic caused global warming is bullshit. You start with your desired conclusion and work backwards. How the hell is that not having an agenda?
|
zorbman
blarrr


Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: zappaisgod]
#8106896 - 03/05/08 04:38 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
8..7...6..5..4..3..2..
Stay down, zap, stay down!!
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: joker_man]
#8107052 - 03/05/08 05:05 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
joker_man said:

You can't save your dignity in this debate with another straw man argument and more ad hominem attacks.
Please, if you can, find some definition of ad hominem that encompasses the notion that it is somehow impermissible or improper to point out a proven liar's (Hansen) perfidy as grounds to disbelieve what he says.Quote:
It absolutely kills me (with laughter) that you act like you don't have an agenda yourself. You are trying to find any way possible to "prove" (in your eyes) that anthropogenic caused global warming is bullshit. You start with your desired conclusion and work backwards. How the hell is that not having an agenda?
I did not start with this conclusion. I started out questioning the orthodoxy of glowbull wormening. Especially because it was being espoused by that arch turd, Al Gore, who I believe to be one of the most reprehensible and dishonest fuckholes ever birthed of woman. Also, because it is and was a fuck America first doctrine. We are a convenient pinata for the intellectually lazy. I like pushing their faces into the mud.
I'm not trying to prove glowbull wormening is bullshit. I want someone to prove it isn't. Given that the only cure for glowbull wormening is human suffering I tend to demand some real serious proof that the disease is worse than the cure. And nobody has even come close.
--------------------
|
AnonymousRabbit
Comrade


Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: zappaisgod]
#8107197 - 03/05/08 05:36 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Why does supernovasky keep lying about what I said? How can this be construed as me misrepresenting anything , especially since I provided a link to the entire article (heh) in the original post.
I showed your post in full when I called it out, so that everyone could see exactly what you said. You used that source to correct me when I said that the last 10 years have been the hottest ever. You said "google "1934 is the hottest year"", implying that, yes, you really did believe 1934 was the hottest year. I also ripped apart that source for not making it clear that it was US temperatures that they were talking about, in this post:
Where I talk about how Zappa's entire article never explictly mentions that the temperature data did NOT change the world-record temperature from 2005 to 1934.
So, a reasonable person would have responded... "Oh, alright. I understand. I guess I was wrong, 1998 WAS hotter and 2005 WAS hotter" How did you respond?
Quote:
I am going to repeat my position. The data of Hansen et al in the US have been corrected downward. The data from the US stations are more reliable than from elsewhere.
In this post, zappa said the above
You respond by saying that the data from the US stations are "Better." For one, you never quantitatively proved that the data from the US is "Better" For two, yon need GLOBAL stations to provide a real temperature record of the world. Even with the BEST temperature measuring tools at EVERY location in the US, you would only account for 2% of the earths surface. For three, the changes only affected US contiguous states. For four, it only applied to data after the year 2000. For five, it only affected global mean temperatures by .003 degrees C.
Much more in depth arguments against his position can be read from pages 16 to now, the cliffnoted version can be find here.
Quote:
I misrepresented nothing. But Hansen did. He went on a national tour whining about how he was being censored by the Bushthugs. Whined thruogh a megaphone that he was being censored. Hansen, NASA, GISS. Restated data twice because they were wrong. Maybe, if they had censored him more they wouldn't have ended up being discredited. Peer review breaks down when some peers are more equal than others.
Nothing but an ad-hominem against Hansen that has no relevance to the debate. They adjusted their data because of VERY minor mistakes and discontinuities in the way that stations reported their data. Each time, the changes were virtually nonexistent on the global level. I talk about how small the changes were here:
Where I go into detail on the magnitude of the suposedly "shamefaced changs" that nasa had to make to correct the GISS
But, for those that probably dont want to rehash THAT argument, here is the graph showing the change that suposedly will lead to the downfall of Hansen:

I want you to look long and hard on that graph. The reason you see no green line? It's because the red line is virtually identical to the old analysis. Notice how all of the stars line up with all of the boxes, some are a millimeter out. This is the suposed DRASTIC OVERHAUL REVISION that changed the highest temperature in the world from 2005 to 1934.
Quote:
Zappa: There are some clear facts:
So far, those have been lacking in your arguments.
Quote:
1. CO2 concentration rose 30% (290 to 380) in the last century 2. Global temperature has increased 0.6C in the last century. 3. CO2 concentration rose 15% in the last decade. 4. Global temperature has not increased at all in the last decade.
1) Correct. 2) False. The 5 year average in 1900 was -.2 degrees C. The 5 year average today is .6 degrees C. As you can see, the 5 year average has raised .8 degrees C, not .6 degrees C. Close though. 3) False. WAY false. 1998: 366.50 PPM 2008: 383.72
That is an increase of 4.6%. A small increase.
Numbers (as always) sourced from.. ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
4) False. This was determined in the following posts, but welcome back to the debate: When I show that without a doubt, the average temperature has been increasing since 1998. WhereI show yearly averages and 5 year averages to show the 2000s were hotter than the 1990s. Where I show that even their own notorious hadcrut graph from the hadley center shows average warming of the planet where I showed how comparing the hottest month in 1998 to the coldest in 2008 is not indicitive of average yearly temperatures decreasing this decade where I show that even with Phred's noisy month-by-month data chart that does not even use yearly averages, that even HIS chart represents an increasing trendline
Welcome back though, man.
Quote:
But you have to be a daft bitch (or someone with an agenda) to believe that there is anything remotely conclusive either way on global warming and CO2.
Love you too. Sorry the data doesn't though.
-------------------- .
|
AnonymousRabbit
Comrade


Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
#8107249 - 03/05/08 05:47 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Oh, and by the way, Johnny and Seuss take note. I remember being called out because of my "ad hominem" attack when I told someone, not even in the scope of the argument, that I had given hard scientific presentations before. I would think being called a "daft bitch" more fits the definition.
-------------------- .
|
|