Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | < Back | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | Next >
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #8322099 - 04/24/08 06:01 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

I nominate supernovasky as moderator/administrator of THE global warming thread It could be the first thread w/ its own staff

supernovasky


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleThe Tourist
Visiting Stranger
Male
Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 145
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: johnm214]
    #8322654 - 04/24/08 10:40 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

I second that action mr johnm

All in favor say I


--------------------
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society"
Jiddu Krishnamurti

"That's a marvelous structural technique of propaganda... It is only in folk tales, children's stories, and the journals of intellectual opinion that power is used wisely and well to destroy evil. The real world teaches very different lessons, and it takes willful and dedicated ignorance to fail to perceive them.”
Noam Chomsky


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: The Tourist]
    #8323142 - 04/24/08 01:26 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

:smile: It's fun. Honestly, I love the shroomery, but the science is where it's at for me. I'm no more or less a stoner or tripper than any of you guys. Like plenty of you, I've got an outside life and an outside career that compliments my lifestyle rather well.

Sometimes I wonder why I did this, all of this, debated in a thread on a drug forum for a month or so about a scientific issue, for no glory or anything like that (it isnt like these arguments, these rebuttals, and these scientific discussions will be read anywhere else). I could have, after all, debated the sources of these errors and misrepresentations themselves.

I find though that these people, the ones pushing this nonsense under the guise of skepticism (which should have any REAL skeptic hurling), are plenty less likely to give me the time of day than the layperson, who just seeks a better understanding of the way things work. I'm not a big hotshot scientist with money, nor do I have the resources to do tests and analyses myself, but those that DO have the resources are fighting just as hard as I am for people to realize the current threat to our planet.

I guess I just do it in a different way, in a different place.


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
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: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8323170 - 04/24/08 01:35 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Just what exactly is your scientific background, credential, experience, whatever you want to call it?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: zappaisgod]
    #8323199 - 04/24/08 01:48 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Zappa, I really don't want to go to into depth on my background on a drug-related forum, as those things could possibly be used against me in some ways. I value my online anonymity greatly, and want as little revealed about myself as possible.

That being said, I've dropped a few hints so that you have an idea of who I am. I've got a degree in a pure science program, I have done research work, and I am always continuing my education.


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetakeflight
retired
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/19/07
Posts: 82
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8326289 - 04/25/08 08:57 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

moded

:werd:

Quote:

supernovasky said:
Zappa, I really don't want to go to into depth on my background on a drug-related forum, as those things could possibly be used against me in some ways. I value my online anonymity greatly, and want as little revealed about myself as possible.

That being said, I've dropped a few hints so that you have an idea of who I am. I've got a degree in a pure science program, I have done research work, and I am always continuing my education.




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
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: takeflight]
    #8327195 - 04/25/08 02:32 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

We've actually had a polite PM exchange. That is all I will say about it.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: zappaisgod]
    #8327357 - 04/25/08 03:16 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

I've noticed you're a lot nicer in PM.:lol: And more rational too.:thumbup:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
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: Icelander]
    #8327539 - 04/25/08 04:05 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Just nicer.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: zappaisgod]
    #8328645 - 04/25/08 09:37 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Just because I disagree with someone on a fundamental level, doesn't mean I cannot acknowledge the merits of a person. Zappa is not a bad person, nor am I, we've just got... VERY... different views on this world :smile:


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8334837 - 04/27/08 05:27 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Honestly, I love the shroomery, but the science is where it's at for me.




Ok, you're obviously keen on peer review, but if you're such a big fan of science, would you mind explaining how the anthropogenic climate change theory is in any way falsifiable? Or do you not think a theory has to be testable in order to be scientific?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Viveka]
    #8335635 - 04/27/08 08:56 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Viveka, the theory is easily falsifiable.
I've offered plenty of evidence in the form of peer reviewed sources all over these last 14 pages.

I'll give you an example, one major hit to anthropogenic CO2 would be to disprove CO2's effect on outgoing radiation in the upper atmosphere in the form of the blocking of various bands in the 2-15 micron range. CO2 blocks a variety of frequencies and to disprove that CO2 blocks these frequencies would certainly falsify Anthropogenic CO2-forced global warming.

In fact, if you have actually been keeping up with the thread, you'd realize that somebody actually did try to disprove CO2 by going at its effects on outgoing radiation. They used the misunderstanding of atmospheric science that the earth is opague to IR (which, on the surface, is relatively true. There ARE gaps in the opague-ness though, as I showed with peer reviewed studies). This would have disproved AGW, if it were true. There was a caveat, though... CO2 is much more important in the upper atmosphere (50-70km), where water vapor is very minimal to nonexistant, and CO2 is at its highest importance... where the heat actually escapes the earth.

In this case, there is "the body of the evidence" to look at, and the theory would be hard to falsify. That does not make it weak or unscientific in my opinion, but instead makes it strong and solid.

There are still ways to falsify it, but because of how solid the evidence is, it would be as futile as trying to falsify evolution.


--------------------
.


Edited by AnonymousRabbit (04/27/08 08:58 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8336868 - 04/28/08 08:03 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Hey guys, I just wanted to talk about the earlier Hadley crut controversy, and because this thread has lasted so long, I can show you exactly what I was talking about back then: That the controversy was rediculous and that comparing one datapoint in the hottest year (an outlier year, an el-nino), and in fact, choosing the HOTTEST datapoint in that year... and comparing it to the coldest point in what will likely be a slightly cooler year, is not the same thing as performing data analysis on multiple points of data.
That method is simply not useful for predicting temperature, for discovering trends, or for maintaining accuracy. It IS useful for stirring up right wing bloggers, though.



So in this post, fireworks_god offered a post showing that the temperature in January 08 was abnormally low, and there was a huge controversy over it. Some said it meant that temperature has been decreasing over the last 10 years, or has stayed the same, and "obviously was not increasing." Many posters got this interpretation from only looking at the hottest point in the hottest year and comparing it to a very cold anomoly month. Before I get started, month-by-month analysis is not nearly as useful at detecting trends as as yearly and 5 year averages. For about a month or two, the blogsphere was buzzing with this silly bit of "evidence."

Here are some snippets of the arguments that I made against this bad misinterpretation of the graph, with links to the MUCH more in-depth posts on this graph that contain things like peer reviewed sources and in-depth scientific explanations:


First of all, I showed the entire hadCrut graph, which clearly shows an increasing temperature:



This graph also helps dispel the myth that "global warming stopped."

Furthermore though, I showed other temperature records besides hadcrut, which also clearly show increasing temps in the last 10 years. Hadcrut anomolies are always smaller than GISS anomolies because hadcrut has its anomoly starting point at 1990 or so. Hadcrut also leaves out the two fastest warming regions of the planet, the poles. I discuss ALL of this in the posts bellow. Here is the GISS temperature record, which clearly shows increasing temperature as well:



Well just recently, a new hadcrut graph with monthly data has been released, and now you can see how much of an anomoly January really was, and exactly why my criticisms on using individual data points to determine trends was correct:



Because of that anomoly month, the temperature of 2008 may be colder than average, but now that temperature anomalies are rising quickly again, it wont be much cooler.

I encourage you to view the GISS raw data here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

This month's anomoly according to the more accurate GISS is as hot as the anomoly was in 2005, the absolute hottest year on record on earth since the stations have been recording temperature.

This is just a cautionary piece of advice not to follow every wobble and bump in a graph to make points in a scientific discussion. More info against this misinterpretation of data is found in the following posts:

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


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8336983 - 04/28/08 09:58 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Yes, temperature varies from month to month. Yes, temperatures today are slightly higher on average than they were fifty years ago -- if we can trust the data from surface stations as being accurate, and there is considerable evidence that we cannot.

But where have you proven that this very slight temperature increase is primarily due to an increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2? I missed that part.

I have been more than patient with this monster of a thread. I said many many pages ago that I wanted to see the political aspects of the situation discussed. Instead, we have had pages and pages and pages more of scientific minutiae.

From a political perspective, trendal posed the relevant question in the twenty-first post of the thread --

Quote:

The Earth is heating up, that much is not in question.

So why not do something about it?




And that is the whole controversy in a nutshell, politically speaking. Politics doesn't enter into the issue at all if we merely observe that the temperature varies from year to year or if we observe that the temperature in the year 2004 was half a degree higher than the temperature in 1974 (or whatever). Politics enters the arena only when governments decide their constituents must be forbidden from burning all of their stuff they choose to burn, or made to pay a fine for burning all of their stuff they want to burn, or be forbidden to buy the kind of lightbulbs they've been buying all their lives, etc.

In the twenty-seventh post of this thread, I answered trendal's question. Here's my answer --

Quote:

1 -- Because if the Earth is heating at all, it is just barely heating (one degree fahrenheit in a century is peanuts)

2 -- Who is to say the ideal temperature is what it was a century ago as opposed to today or three centuries ago or a millenium ago?

3 -- The proposed "solutions" are of much greater potential harm to humanity than the supposed "problem". Money wasted on unnecessary "just in case it really is our fault the Earth is getting warmer" programs is money that is better spent addressing real environmental and developmental problems

4) -- We can't stop it anyway




I will admit there may be other answers I am too dumb to think of, so I invite my fellow members to add to this list.

You will note that my answers don't even dispute the unproven assertion that the recent increase in temperature is primarily the result of human activity. Even though I and many, MANY climate scientists recognize that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is far from being proven, my answers concede the point anyway for the sake of argument and cut right to the chase (politically speaking).

So if y'all want to see this thread left open, and left in this forum rather than transferred to the Science and Technology forum (where it really should have been from the beginning), it would be best to finally start addressing trendal's question.




Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: Phred]
    #8337911 - 04/28/08 03:03 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:


Yes, temperature varies from month to month. Yes, temperatures today are slightly higher on average than they were fifty years ago -- if we can trust the data from surface stations as being accurate, and there is considerable evidence that we cannot.





Show me a peer reviewed source claiming that the surface station data is inaccurate or close to being inaccurate. So far the only inaccuracy that has been discovered was a timing error in how the US stations reported, which affected the US temperature record by around 1% and the global temperature record by .003%. Surface temperature models have been shown to be VERY accurate, and the temperature records themselves are indesputable... they simply are what are recorded. You'll have a hard time finding any scientific journal article that claims that the earth has NOT heated up significantly over the past several years.

Also, almost everyone knows that the increase, however "slight" you believe it to be, changes the entire landscape of where ice forms. A change of .7 degrees C translates into miles and miles of reduced tundra line, frost line, and glaciation line. "small as it may be," it has many consequences.

Where I discuss various consequences to the continued rise in temperature at this rate
Where I post, with peer reviewed sources, about heating's effects on tropical diseases, hurricanes, and famine
Where I explain why simply using "number of storms" rather than measuring intensity is a bad metric to measure hurricanes vs. temperature. In the previous link, I went over the proper metric to compare between hurricanes and temperature: Hurricane intensity.
Where I show, using a very recent paper, how increase in .5 degrees C corresponds with a 40% increase in average hurricane intensity.



Quote:

But where have you proven that this very slight temperature increase is primarily due to an increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2? I missed that part.




*sigh* its rather hard to miss, Phred. But here you go:

Where I list 30 sources that have concluded CO2 affects temperature
Where I give official quotes from scientific organizations that solar variation is not responsible for the current warming trend
Where I explain why and provide sources for why anthropogenic CO2 is the reason for the temperature increase and CO2 since 1880.
Where another poster, seemingly caught between the sides, makes a good argument and comes to the conclusion that solar forcing is not responsible for modern heating, and that CO2 is a better correlation
Another post where I showed a lack of correlation with solar irradiance
Where I post two charts, showing lack of correlation with both Irradiance and Sunspot Numbers, and correlation with increasing CO2
Where I talked about the physics behind CO2 absorbtion of infrared frequencies and why they heat the atmosphere, using physics AND sources
Where I post a peer reviewed paper about the physical effect of the 4.3-15 micron band blocking outgoing radiation
Where I post an explanation in laymans terms, complete with peer-reviewed sources, as to the way that CO2 blocks outgoing heat
Where I post a recent source showing why the heating and cooling rates with respect to CO2 are so important for temperature balance
Where I show why PDO, sunspot number, and solar irradiance have bad correlations on graphs
Where I showed, with sources, the recent warming trend is unique and happening at a fast pace, compared to the past several generations, and show a few different common correlations
Where I post peer reviewed sources that not only explicitly state CO2 is the primary forcer in the temperature increase, but also quantifications of its forcing in watts/square meter
Where I summarized the body of the evidence that shows CO2 is the major global warming forcer.


Using this SCIENCE, I can make a more informed political opinion.
As for my answer to your political question:

Yes.
We need to curb CO2 emissions drastically.


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8338186 - 04/28/08 04:26 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Show me a peer reviewed source claiming that the surface station data is inaccurate or close to being inaccurate.




Again with this "peer-reviewed" nonsense.

Anyone with sense enough to pour piss out of a boot can understand that a surface station which fifty years ago was out in the middle of a prairie but today is in the middle of an asphalted parking lot with a hot air exhaust vent three yards away is not a reliable source of data. You don't need any "peers" to tell you the numbers from such a station should be dropped from the data set. Yet there are hundreds (more likely thousands) of such surface stations that aren't dropped from the data set.

Quote:

*sigh* its rather hard to miss, Phred. But here you go:




None of those posts establish that the very slight temperature change over the last century or so is the result of increased CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere. At best, some of them establish an imperfect correlation between temperature and C02 levels. But it's a chicken or egg thing. There is copious evidence from many impeccably-credentialed climatologists that historically, temperature increases preceded CO2 increases. Why can that not be the case this time, too?

Quote:

As for my answer to your political question:

Yes.
We need to curb CO2 emissions drastically.




Why?

Why is it a good thing for the Earth to have the identical temperature in AD 2008 that it had in 1938 or in 1978? Why isn't it better for the Earth to have the identical temperature in AD 2008 that it had in AD 1108? What benefits to humans accrue from having a lower global temperature?




Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: Phred]
    #8338549 - 04/28/08 05:53 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Again with this "peer-reviewed" nonsense.

Anyone with sense enough to pour piss out of a boot can understand that a surface station which fifty years ago was out in the middle of a prairie but today is in the middle of an asphalted parking lot with a hot air exhaust vent three yards away is not a reliable source of data. You don't need any "peers" to tell you the numbers from such a station should be dropped from the data set. Yet there are hundreds (more likely thousands) of such surface stations that aren't dropped from the data set.




The IPCC has stated numerous times that the effects of urban heat islands effects are likely small in the gridded temperature product used by GISTEMP, and GISTEMP uses methods to correct for the bias of UHI. GISTEMP uses satellite-derived night light observations to classify stations as rural and urban and corrects the urban stations so that they match the trends from the rural stations before gridding the data, and after gridding the data, any UHI trend left would be vastly overwhelmed by the gridded non-UHI data. Furthermore, the Sea Surface Temperatures have been increasing as well, which the combined product also uses to declare an average temperature anomoly. Urban heat island is NOT affecting sea surface temperatures.

Furthermore, the contribution of UHI contamination has been tested in papers such as Dr. Parker.
Dr. Parker compared temperature readings taken in calm weather with those taken in windy weather. If the urban heat island theory is correct then instruments should have recorded a bigger temperature rise for calm weather than for windy weather, because wind blows excess heated air away from cities and away from the measuring instruments. There was no difference between the calm and windy weather temperature trends.

Quote:

we show that, globally, temperatures over land have risen as much on windy nights as on calm nights, indicating that the observed overall warming is not a consequence of urban development.




Parker, David E. (2004), "Large-scale warming is not urban", Nature 432 (7015): 290-290, doi:10.1038/432290a, <http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/projects/soap/pubs/papers/jones_Nature2004.pdf>;.


Something else to consider: The regional trends seen simply do not resemble patterns of urbanization, with the largest trends in the sparsely populated higher latitudes.

So I get the feeling you do not fully understand the null impact that UHI has on temperature products. UHI cannot affect temperature trends on the sea surface, and the places with the most significant warming trends are at high latitudes, not around cities. Furthermore, the UHI effect is corrected for, and even on the windiest days, temperature trend upwards is still seen.

Quote:

None of those posts establish that the very slight temperature change over the last century or so is the result of increased CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere. At best, some of them establish an imperfect correlation between temperature and C02 levels.




With all due respect, Phred, I still believe you may not be reading my posts that I linked. I not only have posts with peer reviewed studies stating EXPLICITLY that as CO2 concentration increases, so does temperature, but I have peer reviewed sources that have QUANTIFIED the forcing of CO2 in terms of watts/square meter. For the layperson, here is the forcings. The actual peer reviewed paper these forcings come from are discussed in the body of links I posted above:



Collins, W.D.; Ramaswamy V.; Schwarzkopf M.D.; Sun Y; Portmann R.W.; Fu Q.; Casanova, S.E.B.; Dufresne, J.L.; Fillmore, D.W.; Forster P.M.; Galin, V.Y.; Gohar L.; Ingram, W.J.; Kratz, D.P.; Lefebvre, M.P.; Li J.; Marquet, P.; Oinas, V.; Tsushima, Y.; Uchiyama, T.; Zhong, W.Y. (2006) Radiative forcing by well-mixed greenhouse gases. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, pp.1-2.

Quote:

There is copious evidence from many impeccably-credentialed climatologists that historically, temperature increases preceded CO2 increases. Why can that not be the case this time, too?




I already addressed this several times.
Summary: Milankovitch cycles were what caused previous warming in earth's history, caused by orbital variation, and these temperature/CO2 increases happened over thousands of years, unlike the current rate of warming and CO2 at a pace never seen in the ice core record.
Here is where I discuss this in depth:

Where I discuss, with peer reviewed sources, exactly what Milankovitch cycles are, and sources that show the current trend is NOT due to Milankovitch cycles.

Quote:

Why is it a good thing for the Earth to have the identical temperature in AD 2008 that it had in 1938 or in 1978? Why isn't it better for the Earth to have the identical temperature in AD 2008 that it had in AD 1108? What benefits to humans accrue from having a lower global temperature?






I showed that the "Medieval Warming Period" was so thoroughly discredited, I am surprised you are back to posting stuff about it. Here are all the posts for interested readers of this debate showing why what he says here, that the temperature today in 2008 is similar to what it was in 1108, is completely wrong and factually incorrect, according to a massive amount of peer reviewed sources that I used to build my argument:

Where I show that using 11 different metrics, the temperatures today are hotter than in Medieval times
Sources as modern as 2007 showing that the Medieval warming period was much cooler than today's warming period
Where I go through all of the evidence behind the "Hockey Stick" Graph, showing temperatures today are more than they have been in the last 2000 years
My most recent thread that analyzes the supposed "Medieval warming period" and through the use of several peer reviewed studies, show that it was nothing compared to the warming today.
There are a lot more links, as this debate was had for a while, but I'll post one of my shorter responses:

Quote:

Supernovasky: "…current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries"

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis 2.3.3 Was there a “Little Ice Age” and a “Medieval Warm Period”?. Retrieved on 2006-05-04.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that the "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect" and that what those "records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century".

You can read more about it here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

The climate reconstruction known as the medieval warming period, instead of only applying to America, only applied to Europe and perhaps western Asia. The data only comes from about 12 places of measurement, contrary to the thousands of places of measurement temperautre is taken today.

Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes, Henry F. Diaz (2003). "Climate in Medieval Time". Science 302 (5644): 404-405.

Using ice cores, the southern hemisphere was not warming, but in fact experienced a very cool period.

Khim, B-K; Yoon H.; Kang C.Y.; Bahk J.J. (November 2002). "Unstable Climate Oscillations during the Late Holocene in the Eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula". Quaternary Research 58 (3): 234-245(12). 

The Medieval warming period, was less of a "period," and certainly less "warming" than some would have you believe. It also, once again, was not global.




Now to the "Why" we should worry about the increasing temperature, and why it would be better were temperatures in the 1930-1980 range, and why our current heating has devastating consequences:

Where I discuss various consequences to the continued rise in temperature at this rate
Where I post, with peer reviewed sources, about heating's effects on tropical diseases, hurricanes, and famine
Where I explain why simply using "number of storms" rather than measuring intensity is a bad metric to measure hurricanes vs. temperature. In the previous link, I went over the proper metric to compare between hurricanes and temperature: Hurricane intensity.
Where I show, using a very recent paper, how increase in .5 degrees C corresponds with a 40% increase in average hurricane intensity.


--------------------
.


Edited by AnonymousRabbit (04/28/08 06:13 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8339163 - 04/28/08 08:09 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

The IPCC has stated numerous times that the effects of urban heat islands effects are likely small in the gridded temperature product used by GISTEMP, and GISTEMP uses methods to correct for the bias of UHI.




And the IPCC is talking out its ass about this. We have already established that the IPCC is a political creature, not a scientific creature. Furthermore, there is no way of knowing whether the "methods" used to "correct" the bias are worth a pinch of coonshit.

Quote:

If the urban heat island theory is correct then instruments should have recorded a bigger temperature rise for calm weather than for windy weather, because wind blows excess heated air away from cities and away from the measuring instruments. There was no difference between the calm and windy weather temperature trends.




Bullshit. Depends which way the wind is blowing, duh. If your thermometer is located three yards away from a hot air exhaust vent directly to the south, then if the wind is blowing from the north you'll get a totally different temperature reading than when the wind is blowing from the south.

Quote:

I showed that the "Medieval Warming Period" was so thoroughly discredited, I am surprised you are back to posting stuff about it.




See, this is where it is obvious you have completely imbibed the Global Warmenist koolaid and have lost all pretense of scientific objectivity. The Roman warm period, the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age... all of these are factual. They occurred. No geo-historian of any credibility denies they occurred. It wasn't until Mann stepped on his dick and got caught fudging his numbers that the Warmenists started frantically trying to rehabilitate him by suddenly deciding, "Oh... that Medieval Warm Period we've been talking about for the last century or so? Never mind. Our bad. Never happened. Same with that Little Ice Age stuff. All those historical references to the Thames freezing solid every winter back then? Fiction. Just a misinterpretation."

Quote:

Now to the "Why" we should worry about the increasing temperature, and why it would be better were temperatures in the 1930-1980 range, and why our current heating has devastating consequences:




Our current heating has no "devastating" consequences. Shorelines are not being swamped. Hurricanes are not becoming more damaging. Droughts and tropical diseases are not becoming more prevalent.

This is all just a tempest in a teapot. The tiny change being discussed here -- a degree Celsius in more than a century -- is trivial. Temperatures routinely change more than a degree Celsius in minutes.

Trendal's comments have some subtle implications. What if we could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that all the warming in the last century was caused by natural processes? Would you then be as keen to beggar humanity to reverse that warming? To forcibly extract trillions of dollars from taxpayers in an attempt to lower the Earth's temperature by a degree Celsius?

If not, why not? Surely if it is bad for us that the Earth's temperature has increased by a degree, it is every bit as bad if the increase was due to natural causes as if it were to manmade causes.




Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: Phred]
    #8339997 - 04/28/08 11:00 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:


And the IPCC is talking out its ass about this. We have already established that the IPCC is a political creature, not a scientific creature. Furthermore, there is no way of knowing whether the "methods" used to "correct" the bias are worth a pinch of coonshit.




The IPCC IS a scientific creature. It has a political advisory component, but it is not politicians behind the wheel, it is scientists. Furthermore, ALL of their conclusions are supported by a vast body of peer reviewed research, similar to the body of peer reviewed research I have submitted to you. You say that there is no way of knowing whether the methods to correct the bias are worth a pinch of coonshit, but you provide no evidence that they are not good ways to correct the bias. Furthermore, you provide no evidence that there is even a bias in the first place, no facts, at all. In fact, I daresay you are pulling all of this out of your ass, because I have yet to see you submit anything FACTUAL in this entire argument.

Gridded temperature readings can be extrapolated over cities to make sure that there is no excess heating in a city compared to the heating in a non-metropolitan nearby area. In the time spent studying exactly what effect the urban heat island has, they have discovered that not only does it not seem to have an effect, but the STRONGEST heating is in places with NO URBANIZATION! As in, the POLAR REGIONS! Lots of urban heat there, huh? And the oceans... they are getting urban heat too? What about the rockies? These places are heating MORE than the average station. Urbanized area's heating rates are heating LESS than the average heating. I've shown ALL of this with peer reviewed sources, not only the IPCC. In fact, the IPCC has taken up very few of my peer reviewed sources.

Quote:

Bullshit. Depends which way the wind is blowing, duh. If your thermometer is located three yards away from a hot air exhaust vent directly to the south, then if the wind is blowing from the north you'll get a totally different temperature reading than when the wind is blowing from the south.




How many meteorology stations are located 3 yards from a hot air exhaust vent? You are pulling at strings like MAD here. Even if you can find one, which I doubt you have ANY evidence exists, it would not throw off a reading of tens of thousands of stations. In fact, urban heat island is totally different from what you are suggesting. It simply states that the average temperature above a city will be hotter than the temperature were that city not there due to asphalt. How much hotter, though? This paper showed that it was not much hotter at all, and the heating RATES were unaffected, only the temperatures, which were corrected downward to match temperatures in the region that were NOT urbanized (for instance, if there are 3 stations in rural areas triangulated 50 miles from the city, that record 65 degrees, 65.2 degrees, and 64.8 degrees, and the city records 66 degrees, it is corrected downward to match the average heating in the area. Urban heat effects do not happen in windy air, where air cannot form a heat bubble like it does in calm air. The argument isn't over "heat vents nearby," its over the urban heat island effect.

Furthermore, I like your style of debate here... I have a peer reviewed source showing that UHI has little to no effect, that made it into a MAJOR peer reviewed journal, with PLENTY of data and evidence to back up its conclusions. Your rebuttal isn't even factual.

Quote:

See, this is where it is obvious you have completely imbibed the Global Warmenist koolaid and have lost all pretense of scientific objectivity. The Roman warm period, the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age... all of these are factual. They occurred. No geo-historian of any credibility denies they occurred. It wasn't until Mann stepped on his dick and got caught fudging his numbers that the Warmenists started frantically trying to rehabilitate him by suddenly deciding, "Oh... that Medieval Warm Period we've been talking about for the last century or so? Never mind. Our bad. Never happened. Same with that Little Ice Age stuff. All those historical references to the Thames freezing solid every winter back then? Fiction. Just a misinterpretation."




Fact: The hottest time in the Medieval warm period was a temperature anomoly of .1 degrees celcius. The temperature anomoly today is around .7.

If no "geo-historian" of any kind denies that they occured, then why is there a MASSIVE body of peer reviewed journal articles saying exactly that... that they did not occur compared to the heating that we see today? I have told you time.. and time.. and time.. and time.. and time again that the medieval warming period was NOT very significant, compared to the temperature increase we see today, and I've given you MORE than enough peer reviewed journal articles to show that it did not happen like you say it did. Give me a peer reviewed journal article, ANY article, that has not already been rebutted by facts in an article produced after it, that states that the medieval warming period was anywhere near the anomaly we see today. I will tell you this off of the bat: You cant. Not from a credible journal. There were TWO papers that were accepted that concluded a medieval warming period, but BOTH were thoroughly discredeted not only by papers that followed, but new metrics from groups that Mann was not even a part of that found the SAME conclusions.

Of course, if you want to make up your own facts, be my guest... but don't try to apply your made up facts to public policy.

Quote:

Our current heating has no "devastating" consequences. Shorelines are not being swamped. Hurricanes are not becoming more damaging. Droughts and tropical diseases are not becoming more prevalent.





This is the equivalent to plugging your ears and saying "IM NOT LISTENING!"
I've already shown you that the proper metric, hurricane intensity, HAS increased over the last 50 years. This isn't even debatable. Its a matter of fact. I've shown you the journal articles stating such.

Quote:

This is all just a tempest in a teapot. The tiny change being discussed here -- a degree Celsius in more than a century -- is trivial. Temperatures routinely change more than a degree Celsius in minutes.




"Tiny temperature changes" can change landscapes and melt entire miles of ice, because it reduces the range in which ice can occur. Certain regions that used to experience temperatures bellow 0 degrees C, do not experience those temperatures anymore. This is an easy enough concept, so I ont spend any more time on it.

Quote:

Trendal's comments have some subtle implications. What if we could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that all the warming in the last century was caused by natural processes? Would you then be as keen to beggar humanity to reverse that warming? To forcibly extract trillions of dollars from taxpayers in an attempt to lower the Earth's temperature by a degree Celsius?

If not, why not? Surely if it is bad for us that the Earth's temperature has increased by a degree, it is every bit as bad if the increase was due to natural causes as if it were to manmade causes.




This whole paragraph is useless, because the physics and wattage forcing behind CO2 is already proven, and the source of excess, unbalanced CO2 is unequivocally, us.


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion *DELETED* *DELETED* [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8341097 - 04/29/08 07:21 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Post deleted by AnonymousRabbit


--------------------
.


Edited by AnonymousRabbit (04/29/08 07:27 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | < Back | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | Next >

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Good article on global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
luvdemshrooms 4,997 86 06/10/03 04:56 AM
by Innvertigo
* A look at global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
luvdemshrooms 13,994 119 02/27/04 01:07 AM
by EchoVortex
* Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Evolving 5,177 75 05/04/03 08:07 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Global warming nothing but pretend communist conspiracy
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
question_for_joo 10,911 112 08/31/04 07:48 PM
by Gijith
* Global Warming?
( 1 2 all )
luvdemshrooms 2,409 37 07/18/03 06:49 PM
by Innvertigo
* More fantasies about global warming carbonhoots 994 17 11/01/03 02:44 PM
by d33p
* Blair must tackle global warming Xlea321 463 1 05/28/04 10:30 AM
by phi1618
* "The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair
( 1 2 all )
Phred 2,887 20 03/14/04 12:45 PM
by silversoul7

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
39,558 topic views. 0 members, 8 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.036 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 15 queries.