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.
When the global temperature computer models were developed, several important factors were either omitted or put in at adjusted rates such as sea surface temperatures, black dust from Eurasia and solar influence of the sun. All of these factors have an effect on global temperature along with greenhouse gases like methane. When Michaels fed the correct values for these factors into the computer model, the adjusted global temperate went down.
Are you saying that climate change isn't a current problem?
It is, around the world.
There are droughts in areas that rarely saw them, this is a drought year in SE Asia where they're about to start (they hope) the rainy season.
Look at the global changes and see if there's an impact.
Are you saying that climate change isn't a current problem?
It is, around the world. There are droughts in areas that rarely saw them, this is a drought year in SE Asia where they're about to start (they hope) the rainy season.
Look at the global changes and see if there's an impact.
Yes, but that isn't evidence of anything significant though. Many places have occurrences of different types of weather that only happen once every so often. You have heard mention of places that refer to the "100 year flood", or mention the "drought of XXXX" and so on. The fact that they happen isn't a telling indicator as they do happen and even a "record" occurrence is not indicative of anything.
The problem is that people are making claims that are not supported by the facts and only when they use models to which they make extreme assumptions and adjustments do they come up with conclusions that appear as if they are significant of anything. The issue with this is that it doesn't match the observed trends as is mentioned. Part of the reason as the OP's mentions is that they often will omit data that makes the models turn in a direction they dislike and they use poor reasoning to do so.
Here are some claims made by the "US climate change task force":
Climate change is already having "pervasive, wide-ranging" effects on "nearly every aspect of our society," a task force representing more than 20 federal agencies reported Tuesday.
"These impacts will influence how and where we live and work as well as our cultures, health and environment," the report states. "It is therefore imperative to take action now to adapt to a changing climate."
The models are showing amazing things that are supposed to happen. Devastating storms, extreme droughts, and the effects would be catastrophic, yet... the observed trends are not showing such, and what is even more important is that when it is compared with our historical data, they often are not even significant occurrences.
People often refer to more recent happenings as evidence, but when you look at the big picture, the trend is often "normal" within its pattern.
Look at the droughts in the US during the 1930's to 40's. Then look at our more recent times. Does it appear abnormal or unprecedented?
The white house task for says it is, but where are they determining this? And if they are not using the observational data to come to their conclusion, then isn't that kind of odd? If they are using the data, how are they coming to such wild claims? Are they cherry picking? Because one could certainly take bits and pieces of the above data, throw in some recent issues (California fire, the record snow coverage, specific crop failures, droughts or floods that were record in a very specific location) and claim disaster, but doing so would be devious.
Good thing the High Plains Journal of Dodge City, Kansas broke that important news.
Interesting, so you use a fallacy to source discredit, but do so in an ignorant manner to which appears that it doesn't realize who it is dismissing.
Since you like to appeal to authority, let us look at the details.
First, the article is from an Agricultural Journal. I know that in your arogance, you might see agricultural science as "dumb hicks and farmers" who wear overhauls and are nothing more than lower class prep cooks, but the issue here is the claims as I mentioned in my other post concerning the "effects" of climate change. A problem for your astrologers predicting the end of the world.
So, it reports on issues such as this because... well... when the claims are that your crops are in terrible shape and well... they aren't, it kind of raises an eye brow. They are just dumb hicks though right? Shouldn't they be off wearing white sheets and protesting at tea party rallies so them there "real scientist" can do work?
Let us move on though to this poser who is making the claim here. Obviously this can't be a "real climate scientist" of any note right? And if he is, well he certainly isn't established or anything right?
"Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979."
So I guess he is a climate scientists.
He has published in these journals:
"Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science"
Looks like he won an award for some of his work:
"He was an author of the climate "paper of the year" awarded by the Association of American Geographers in 2004."
This looks impressive, that is... if titles impress you.
"past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society."
Oh, this ought to sell you right here right? I mean, being a big fan of the IPCC and all.
"Michaels is a contributing author and reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007."
Interesting, you came in here, waved off the link using typical fallacious source attack and low and behold, this guy is exactly what your position has been waving off any objections to the science with.
That is, he is a climate scientist with a PHD IN the field. He has published "peerreviedliterature" (tm) in major journals, he was an author of the IPCC's report, a reviewer, and a leading position in organizations dealing with "climate science".
Now if I were the type who appeals to authority, this would be one of the guys I would be worshiping at because he has all the cool titles and words that make him appear important. Heck, if I were that type of person, I would be breathing in every word he said and regurgitating it as the holy gospel.
Fortunately, I am not that type. So I will leave it to you now that you have all of the key requirements to accept his claims as the complete and honest truth that has been validated!
Yeah, I didn't think so.
Nope, this is not why you worship at the AGW altar. You just use this as an argument to discredit and dismiss any objection to your position. Your true motive is simply pushing a political point because... well... you agree with it. /nod
When the global temperature computer models were developed, several important factors were either omitted or put in at adjusted rates such as sea surface temperatures, black dust from Eurasia and solar influence of the sun. All of these factors have an effect on global temperature along with greenhouse gases like methane. When Michaels fed the correct values for these factors into the computer model, the adjusted global temperate went down.
What does Al Gore say to this?
and if you saw what is outside our house today, you would think it will go down even further.
I have no idea what Al Gore says, but I am sure that if this argument doesn't work, you will be looking for another. And another. You will never give up even if everything around is on fire.
Yes, but that isn't evidence of anything significant though. Many places have occurrences of different types of weather that only happen once every so often. You have heard mention of places that refer to the "100 year flood", or mention the "drought of XXXX" and so on. The fact that they happen isn't a telling indicator as they do happen and even a "record" occurrence is not indicative of anything.
The problem is that people are making claims that are not supported by the facts and only when they use models to which they make extreme assumptions and adjustments do they come up with conclusions that appear as if they are significant of anything. The issue with this is that it doesn't match the observed trends as is mentioned. Part of the reason as the OP's mentions is that they often will omit data that makes the models turn in a direction they dislike and they use poor reasoning to do so.
Here are some claims made by the "US climate change task force":
The models are showing amazing things that are supposed to happen. Devastating storms, extreme droughts, and the effects would be catastrophic, yet... the observed trends are not showing such, and what is even more important is that when it is compared with our historical data, they often are not even significant occurrences.
People often refer to more recent happenings as evidence, but when you look at the big picture, the trend is often "normal" within its pattern.
Look at the droughts in the US during the 1930's to 40's. Then look at our more recent times. Does it appear abnormal or unprecedented?
The white house task for says it is, but where are they determining this? And if they are not using the observational data to come to their conclusion, then isn't that kind of odd? If they are using the data, how are they coming to such wild claims? Are they cherry picking? Because one could certainly take bits and pieces of the above data, throw in some recent issues (California fire, the record snow coverage, specific crop failures, droughts or floods that were record in a very specific location) and claim disaster, but doing so would be devious.
Great post. Again, don't confuse liberals with facts. They like thier fairy tales as they are and do not want the intrusion of facts and science to disturb thier world.
How about we ALL ignore Mr. Gore while we're at it. He's not a scientist. He has not published peer reviewed work. He's an opportunistic venture capitalist who just happened to realize AGW is more of a threat that he once thought and decided to make a little money off of it.
Funny how capitalist get mad at capitalists when they don't agree with their politics. Isn't it.
Edit: Normander, you can't link to a peer reviewed science article? Your "the weather isn't that bad/ is always changing" story up there has nothing to do with AGW or disproving AGW.
Last edited by alleged return of serfdom; 03-21-2010 at 12:04 PM..
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.
