Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
During the age of the dinosaur it was much warmer back then...the, world temperatures averaged 25 degrees C. Compare that to todays 12 C, it was much warmer back then! The tropics were only a litter warmer than they are now, but the warm temperatures extended into the far north and south.
25 C = 77 F
12 C = 53.6 F
Crowley has some issues with his proxies. His data selection is often poor and his methodology is sometimes odd and unexplained (I will provide evidence if you require it). I am not sure why they keep citing him after all of the problems found in his work. Though Crowley does tend to rely on Jones heavily and Gavin (creator of real climate) is for the most part a front to combat McIntyre and skeptical objection to AGW in general (see climategate emails concerning the creation of realclimate.org), so it is not surprising it would be used there. Also, we are dealing with tree ring proxies here and it is still not determined whether they give an accurate representation of climate records of the past (as has been hashed to death concerning Mann and Briffa's work).
Aside from that, what point are you trying to make? Or were you just trying to be informative?
An opinion when it concerns verifiable fact is simple ignorant spittle being spread to encourage a bias. That is, your opinion is invalid.
This issue doesn't need an expert for the discussion we are having. We are not establishing a fact, or relying on our own opinions based on experience. The issue of science is quantitative. We can look at the data and see if it comes to any evidential conclusions.
when one scientists claims one thing, we can look at another and see what he objects to. They aren't issues of picking the best opinoin. Science isn't about who gets the most nods. This is why consensus is bunk and nothing more than political trickery. We can see the errors in someones research. The scientific method is quite strict in this process. Every test of a hypothesis must succeed. If it fails, and if it can be properly explained and supported as to why it fails, then it can still stand.
In the cases we are discussing, the claims being made are not supported properly. They are subjective, assumptive, and rely heavily on factors that can not be verified or validated. Not only that, but their hypothesis constantly fails (as is shown with the consistent failed predictions of models). They can't explain why it is failing, but they keep chugging on with their hypothesis like it is still good.
When Mann takes and graphs a surface temperature record on to his tree ring proxy and then smooths it to remove any divergence, he is failing to properly apply scientific process. That is, his tree ring proxies fail to be consistent at that point and he doesn't explain it, he simply throws it out, adds in the surface record (which I already told you is a very poor source at the moment) and then he uses smoothing to make it turn up with the tree ring proxies.
We can see the issue here, look at the scientific method and we know that is wrong in application. When a mathematician looks at that work and says that they have never seen any form of applied use such as that and there is no known support to apply such method, then we also can see a problem. This is not rocket science, it is evident.
So yes, you can look at this issue as a laymen (providing you can read, understand logic and some math) and see that things aren't adding up. To claim one must be an expert to see obvious process error is yet again, another fallacious political tactic trying to hide the fact that there are issues with the research.
The problem here is you are "believing" and you should not be using that form of assessment. Science is not an act of faith, it is a process of evaluation and tested validation. Your belief is irrelevant, it has no place in the results of this process.
Models are just that, models, sometimes they are not correct when some factors are ignored or inappropriately weighed or whatever. But models can work (though not very far into the future), they are used in weather prediction all the time.
No, an opinion can't be invalid. An opinion only refers to that one person or others sharing it. And to that person or group of persons their opinion is valid, obviously. Wheter or not you share my opinion is another story and not relevant to me as the holder of my opinion.
Nope, only experts can understand the detailed positions of those two opposing groups of scientists claiming different things. I can't tell who is right and who is wrong, not because I am stupid, but because it is simply not my area of expertise. If you yourself don't have a graduate degree in this matter and still claim to be able to tell, you are simply not to be taken seriously in my view. There are a lot of people with an agenda, who read a lot about this or that, oftentimes particularly from sources supporting their agenda, and then keep quoting complex stuff which is supposed to back their claims. That won't work with me. Rather safe than sorry.
Apart from that the climate in many regions IS getting warmer, which doesn't mean one knows the exact reason (the consensus is however that the reasons are man-made), but still, it is not an illusion or opinion, but an observation. Ask the weather stations that have data since the 19th century.
I read on the site of the climate research institute in Potsdam that since 1990 the global sea level has risen 3.4mm per year (80% faster than predicted by the often criticized IPCC). Those are not predictions into the future, but simply measurements from the past. The University of Colorado seems to come to the same conclusion: University of Colorado Global mean sea level
On this map it shows that the global sea level doesn't exclude falling regional sea levels in some areas.
I really don't see any reason to continue this discussion with you, we will never agree on anything, and I guess that's a good thing
Models are just that, models, sometimes they are not correct when some factors are ignored or inappropriately weighed or whatever. But models can work (though not very far into the future), they are used in weather prediction all the time.
Yes, models are used to evaluate at possibility, they are not conclusive and they are not a "step" in the process to achieving a conclusion. Models such as climate models are nothing more than weather models that must account for many more variables that are not understood. the success of standard weather models is extremely poor past a 24 hour period. They are only even setting at a 60-80% success rate within a 24 hour period. After that, they drop dramatically going to a 20% after the first 24 hours and then to single digits past a 3 day window.
The problem is that the climate research is using these models to predict far into the future. Every prediction made by these models has been wrong. We were waiting for the 10 year mark to recheck them and ALL failed. It was such a failure that other research institutions were making fun of the climate science researchers. In fact, one animal research institution set up a monkey to do weather predictions and the monkey scored better than the climate models. Problem is, the Climate Science agenda team STILL put faith that their models are accurate and they use them all over the place in their work as fillers for things they can not explain. It is sloppy, it is not science, it is garbage research driven by prejudice to an outcome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
No, an opinion can't be invalid. An opinion only refers to that one person or others sharing it. And to that person or group of persons their opinion is valid, obviously. Wheter or not you share my opinion is another story and not relevant to me as the holder of my opinion.
Read on logic and philosophy sometime. I am not going to waste my time explaining to you the basics of this subject. Look up opinions, subjective, objective, valid, invalid, sound, unsound, etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Nope, only experts can understand the detailed positions of those two opposing groups of scientists claiming different things. I can't tell who is right and who is wrong, not because I am stupid, but because it is simply not my area of expertise. If you yourself don't have a graduate degree in this matter and still claim to be able to tell, you are simply not to be taken seriously in my view. There are a lot of people with an agenda, who read a lot about this or that, oftentimes particularly from sources supporting their agenda, and then keep quoting complex stuff which is supposed to back their claims. That won't work with me. Rather safe than sorry.
I am an expert in computer networking and programming. Computers have feelings and people are unaware of them, you can trust me, I am right. No, I don't need to show you any evidence of my claim, it just is. Because I am an expert, you must accept my claim as fact!
Seriously, you are arguing a direct appeal to authority. As I explained, we can review peoples claims and require them to show them evident. The problem is, others have, they have asked for the data and methods that these "experts" have used to come to their claim and they refused. Why? because other experts tried to add up the claims, and couldn't get the same results (verification and validation by another is one of the processes of the scientific method).
You talk about other people having an agenda, but did it ever occur to you that the scientist promoting their work might have an agenda? Did it? Do you know why the scientific method was created? It wasn't to fan the ego of any specific person, it was created because humans are error prone and regardless of their discipline to a subject and to the search, they are susceptible to bias. This process if held to reduces the influence of bias because everything must be verified, validated, and shown evident.
You see, we had a lot of problems in our history concerning science. We had organizations be it the Church, the government, etc... all dictating that the results should fall in line with a certain belief. This method defies bias and requires verifiable evidence. one can not simply step up to a pulpit and demand conformity and expect subservience to a view because they spoke. They must show why their hypothesis is correct. They must make it evident, they must show that it can not fail, and is a fact of result.
Your problem here is that you do not understand scientific process and you use subjective means to discern your position. You keep claiming "common sense", but if you had any understanding of the hard sciences, you would understand that not everything is explained by common sense. In fact, there are occurrences that defy common sense of the day. This is why we do not use it as a means to discover and establish fact. This is why it there is a fallacy called "common sense". Some things just don't fit into that perception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Apart from that the climate in many regions IS getting warmer, which doesn't mean one knows the exact reason (the consensus is however that the reasons are man-made), but still, it is not an illusion or opinion, but an observation. Ask the weather stations that have data since the 19th century.
There has been warming. Nobody is denying such. What is being objected to is the claims of how much (which is why I discussed surface station errors and the like) and if it is significant compared to historical trends.
I am well aware of the surface stations and their past readings. Were you aware that many of those past readings are often ignored?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
I read on the site of the climate research institute in Potsdam that since 1990 the global sea level has risen 3.4mm per year (80% faster than predicted by the often criticized IPCC). Those are not predictions into the future, but simply measurements from the past. The University of Colorado seems to come to the same conclusion: University of Colorado Global mean sea level
On this map it shows that the global sea level doesn't exclude falling regional sea levels in some areas.
3.4 is incorrect, your second link even shows that. Also, there are issues with the "analysis of TOPEX data".
My opinion is valid and correct to me, it's that simple. What it is to you or anyone else is irrelevant to me.
If your saying you are a computer networking and programming expert was not part of the joke, all your statements here regarding climate are just your opinions, which is fine with me, but still... Only if you have a Ph.D. in climate research or a similar discipline would you be anything else than just one of many people talking about this topic.
"Can you tell me what was the hottest year from 1900-to date?"
Where? If globally, I assume it was not recently, else you would not have asked. There have always been extremes in both directions thoughout history, But I doubt those extremes were as frequent as they have been recently. Just tell me when it was, I am too lazy to search now
Your source is from McIntyre. He is himself part of that whole climate change dispute. He is not an objective source to me.
I don't run, I am still here, but I just don't want to waste so much time on this topic as I already have my opinion on it and no details will change it. I am more interested in society, the only reason why climate change is of any interest to me is because of its potential impact on human life. It doesn't matter to me if temperatures or sea levels rise 50% faster or slower than predicted. It won't change my view that our western life style is bad for the world.
Just heard on the news that past June was the warmest on record. And when searching for that news on the Web I stumbled upon a similar story from around this time last year saying the same thing about ocean surface temperatures:
Warmest June on record, climate scientists say (http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/warmest-june-on-record-climate-scientists-say-804995.html - broken link)
The link provides a graph that shows by day the trend. The linked graph shows what his happening right now. While the Global temp has been warmer, it has fallen below the 2009 line. As the El Nino event fades and La Nina kicks in, it will be interesting to see what happens over the rest of the year.
It's already being questioned over the placement of the weather data gathering locations. Apparently they placed them near more urban areas which have higher temperatures. That's according to Drudge as of today.
But it has been a hot summer, or at least one of extremes. We've had many record high temps and a few record low temps here along the east coast. At least the drought appears to be over for now. From a potentially damaging dry spell hurting crops to now probably 90% of the corn crop being harvested.
Last year we didn't even have the air conditioners in yet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
