The coming Ice Age

[ZedMikey]

I'm sure you will believe NASA is lying too, but here's a link to the new data that just came out. :haha:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/NASA-Global-Warming-Alarmists/2011/07/28/id/405200

So new, I talked about it over 100 posts ago... :rolleyes:

http://www.nw-wheelers.com/forum/showpost.php?p=891447&postcount=250

 

[Jaydog]

So new, I talked about it over 100 posts ago... :rolleyes:

http://www.nw-wheelers.com/forum/showpost.php?p=891447&postcount=250

It's still new, you comment as though you are dismissing how important it was and that only "minor" adjustments will be needed to the current climate models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show. There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

I don't know about you, but "HUGE DISCREPANCY" doesn't sound very "minor" to me. :;

 

[Jaydog]

What? Jay, now you're just being thick. I wasn't even talking about the "hide the decline" links. Pull your head out of your ass, please.

My post was only in response to the link about the NRDC paper about temperature effects on ozone levels.

I haven't had a chance to read through the stuff from Dr. Curry. And besides... I wasn't calling any scientist a liar. I was calling the jackass that wrote that editorial piece a liar, because he blatantly misrepresents what the paper was about.

Not that I expect you to let pesky things like facts get in the way of accusing me of whatever you feel like.

I'm only accusing you of being bias, which is not an insult, everyone is bias, I just wanted you to admit it :redneck:

Herein lies the problem, you have consensus on your side, there is a consensus on the other side, both sides are scientists, both have published papers and both are recognized, which ones should we believe, I personally don't give a rats patootie which side is correct, as long as it is done in a rational matter that has minimal impact upon the world economy without some underlying sierra club/earth first/save the whales movement. :awesomework:

 

[ZedMikey]

It's still new, you comment as though you are dismissing how important it was and that only "minor" adjustments will be needed to the current climate models.

I don't know about you, but "HUGE DISCREPANCY" doesn't sound very "minor" to me. :;

Let's say I have a data set consisting of points on the line y=x, and the system I'm modeling is stable in only a small range around that, so variations on the order of 10% or more dramatically affect the behavior. Now I compare it to my model that uses the equation y=2x, when I attempt to predict what's happening at the points between x=10000 and x=100000, I have a "huge discrepancy" on the order of 100%! Fortunately... I can compare it to my empirical data set to find out that all I have to do is change my 2 to a 1... "minor" adjustment... and I'm down to 0% error.

Obviously, this is a simplistic example. The adjustment necessary for the climate models will be more complicated than changing a 2 to a 1, but it is still just tweaking equations so that the curve fits the observed data.

We have a model and we have new data that the model has to account for. This is nothing new in science. This is not some fatal blow to climate modeling. This is new data refining the existing model.

 

[ZedMikey]

I'm only accusing you of being bias, which is not an insult, everyone is bias, I just wanted you to admit it :redneck:

Yes... accusing me of being biased based upon something I didn't even say.

I am definitely biased. I am biased against believing the words of random nut job bloggers that misrepresent scientific papers to try to push their agenda. :awesomework:

Herein lies the problem, you have consensus on your side, there is a consensus on the other side, both sides are scientists, both have published papers and both are recognized, which ones should we believe,

Jay, I don't think you understand the word consensus. ("You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means.") You can't have a consensus on both sides...

I personally don't give a rats patootie which side is correct, as long as it is done in a rational matter that has minimal impact upon the world economy without some underlying sierra club/earth first/save the whales movement. :awesomework:

This might be the first coherent, rational thought you've expressed in this whole thread. :fawkdancesmiley: And I agree with you. :beer:

 

[ZedMikey]

Here is a great article, it is a long read, but well worth it, I figured you would like it since the author is a physics professor at Princeton University, I really don't think he's lying.



http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-truth-about-greenhouse-gases

I don't think he's lying, either.

Let me summarize how the key issues appear to me, a working scientist with a better background than most in the physics of climate. CO2 really is a greenhouse gas and other things being equal, adding the gas to the atmosphere by burning coal, oil, and natural gas will modestly increase the surface temperature of the earth.

:redneck:

That actually is a pretty interesting link, but I doubt we're coming away from it with the same ideas. I might take the time to dissect it a bit... Unfortunately, I have a fire to put out at work this weekend, and my wife and I are going out for her birthday tonight. I'm sure I'll find time eventually.

 

[Jaydog]

Let's say I have a data set consisting of points on the line y=x, and the system I'm modeling is stable in only a small range around that, so variations on the order of 10% or more dramatically affect the behavior. Now I compare it to my model that uses the equation y=2x, when I attempt to predict what's happening at the points between x=10000 and x=100000, I have a "huge discrepancy" on the order of 100%! Fortunately... I can compare it to my empirical data set to find out that all I have to do is change my 2 to a 1... "minor" adjustment... and I'm down to 0% error.

Obviously, this is a simplistic example. The adjustment necessary for the climate models will be more complicated than changing a 2 to a 1, but it is still just tweaking equations so that the curve fits the observed data.

We have a model and we have new data that the model has to account for. This is nothing new in science. This is not some fatal blow to climate modeling. This is new data refining the existing model.

Yes, you are correct in that statement, but let's put it into perspective, when you are aiming a gun, you might make a minor adjustment for windage, but I think we can both agree that a minor adjustment at the barrell makes a huge adjustment out at 1000yrds, the current climate model might take a minor adjustment in the data, but the outcome will now be a huge difference, it isn't a fatal blow to climate modeling, but it is a fatal blow to the Al Gore supporters. :D

 

[Jaydog]

I don't think he's lying, either.

:redneck:

That actually is a pretty interesting link, but I doubt we're coming away from it with the same ideas. I might take the time to dissect it a bit... Unfortunately, I have a fire to put out at work this weekend, and my wife's and I are going out for her birthday tonight. I'm sure I'll find time eventually.

The two paragraphs above the quote you made were the most truthful part of the blog :awesomework:

 

[CrustyJeep]

my wife's and I are going out for her birthday tonight. I'm sure I'll find time eventually.

You're putting your wife over your fake Internet friends? :booo:

 

[Jaydog]

You're putting your wife over your fake Internet friends? :booo:

What's the world coming to :booo:

 

[ZedMikey]

What's the world coming to :booo:

I blame it on the degradation of family values in this country. :redneck:

 

[ZedMikey]

Yes, you are correct in that statement, but let's put it into perspective, when you are aiming a gun, you might make a minor adjustment for windage, but I think we can both agree that a minor adjustment at the barrell makes a huge adjustment out at 1000yrds, the current climate model might take a minor adjustment in the data, but the outcome will now be a huge difference, it isn't a fatal blow to climate modeling, but it is a fatal blow to the Al Gore supporters. :D

Good thing I'm not an Al Gore supporter, then. :D But this also isn't a fatal blow to the anthropogenic climate change crowd. That paper suggests the climate is "less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized." Less sensitive... not insensitive.

You would be right about us both agreeing that minor adjustments can make huge differences in outcome... since that was exactly the point I was making.

 

[ZedMikey]

The two paragraphs above the quote you made were the most truthful part of the blog :awesomework:

Ok... let's look at those two, then.

Consider this comment from one of the most respected IPCC leaders, as revealed in the CRU e-mails:

 

[ZedMikey]

Aren't you tired of being wrong, yet, Jay? :beer:

 

[Jaydog]

Aren't you tired of being wrong, yet, Jay? :beer:

Wrong? I started this thread with sarcasm of the scientific community in mind, no, there probably won't be an Ice Age, and no, I don't think man has much affect on climate change, but it is not I that has been wrong, it is the scientists that you obviously hold in pretty high regard, for if not, you wouldn't spend countless hours trying to exonerate people that you don't even know.
No, I think it is an ideology that you subscribe to, and to acknowledge any tampering of evidence, or hand picking of data would be to question the very root of your belief system and I don't think you are quite ready for that, but like I stated before, your perception is your reality, but one day your perception may change and you might realize that when money is involved people will lie, cheat, and steal to get a piece of it, which is why Happer was commenting on allowing a small group to be it's own peer, the point you obviously missed. :;

 

[ZedMikey]

Wrong? I started this thread with sarcasm of the scientific community in mind, no, there probably won't be an Ice Age, and no, I don't think man has much affect on climate change, but it is not I that has been wrong, it is the scientists that you obviously hold in pretty high regard, for if not, you wouldn't spend countless hours trying to exonerate people that you don't even know.
No, I think it is an ideology that you subscribe to, and to acknowledge any tampering of evidence, or hand picking of data would be to question the very root of your belief system and I don't think you are quite ready for that, but like I stated before, your perception is your reality, but one day your perception may change and you might realize that when money is involved people will lie, cheat, and steal to get a piece of it, which is why Happer was commenting on allowing a small group to be it's own peer, the point you obviously missed. :;

And that's why you're wrong... again... I acknowledge that tampering/fraud/etc does happen in the scientific community. I acknowledged it in this thread as early as post 94. Is that too long ago for you to remember? It's come up since then, too. I touched on it in post 243. Sort of again in post 261. Hit it head on in post 283. Sounds like you're wrong to me.

And I know what Happer was trying to say. You obviously missed my point that the emails to which he referred in the paragraph prior to his quoting of James Madison have nothing to do with people trying to be their own peers. It was about justified criticism of the lack of rigor in the review committee of a particular journal. The published paper was based upon bad science... the journal even admitted it, and people resigned over it.

http://www.int-res.com/articles/misc/CREditorial.pdf

That also sounds like you're wrong. Should I post a history of other times you've been wrong in this thread?

 

[WHITE TRASH1]

Fawking seriously zedmikey do you have another account where you talk about grease? Just cant leave anything alone at all can you?

 

[ZedMikey]

Fawking seriously zedmikey do you have another account where you talk about grease? Just cant leave anything alone at all can you?

I can (and do) leave lots of things alone... like that damn thread about grease! :fawkdancesmiley:

Besides... the thread was a couple pages back. Had to :stirpot: a little.

 

[WHITE TRASH1]

Well then carry on then zedfrancis. :flipoff:

 

[whatthe?]

In the above cartoon are you the one at the computer or is it tranny frank?:D:hi:

 

[WHITE TRASH1]

In the above cartoon are you the one at the computer or is it tranny frank?:D:hi:

Can't be me I'm posting from my phone ad usual. :flipoff:

 

[Jaydog]

And that's why you're wrong... again... I acknowledge that tampering/fraud/etc does happen in the scientific community. I acknowledged it in this thread as early as post 94. Is that too long ago for you to remember? It's come up since then, too. I touched on it in post 243. Sort of again in post 261. Hit it head on in post 283. Sounds like you're wrong to me.

And I know what Happer was trying to say. You obviously missed my point that the emails to which he referred in the paragraph prior to his quoting of James Madison have nothing to do with people trying to be their own peers. It was about justified criticism of the lack of rigor in the review committee of a particular journal. The published paper was based upon bad science... the journal even admitted it, and people resigned over it.

http://www.int-res.com/articles/misc/CREditorial.pdf

That also sounds like you're wrong. Should I post a history of other times you've been wrong in this thread?

Whatever, I guess only time will tell, but be sure that when the next bit of info that comes out undermining the whole "man made global warming hoax" I will be sure to post it up for you to dissect, tear apart, and do your damage control. :haha:

 

[ZedMikey]

Whatever, I guess only time will tell, but be sure that when the next bit of info that comes out [misrepresenting a scientific paper in a futile attempt at] undermining the whole "man made global warming hoax" I will be sure to post it up for you to dissect, tear apart, and [do your best to allow people to understand the real science being discussed instead of what some nut job talking head that doesn't have two brain cells to rub together is spewing out his rectum]. :haha:

Fixed that for ya, Jay... :fawkdancesmiley: And I'm ready whenever you are. :awesomework: :beer:

 

[Jaydog]

Fixed that for ya, Jay... :fawkdancesmiley: And I'm ready whenever you are. :awesomework: :beer:

I'm guessing you are an engineer, if not, you missed your calling in life :haha:

 

[ZedMikey]

I thought my calling was politics... after all, I like arguing without getting anything accomplished. :haha:

 

[Jaydog]

I thought my calling was politics... after all, I like arguing without getting anything accomplished. :haha:

That's true, and it would explain your flippy flop too :redneck:

 

[Jaydog]

Uh Oh, another theory undermining man made global warming :D

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/39991

Really, though, to dwell on these nuances of interpretation is to miss the much bigger picture. 1. There is now increasingly persuasive evidence that the IPCC

 

[CrustyJeep]

Uh Oh, another theory undermining man made global warming :D

But that's just a theory Jay, and you've gone to such great lengths to point out that theories are almost always wrong :flipoff:

 

[Jaydog]

But that's just a theory Jay, and you've gone to such great lengths to point out that theories are almost always wrong :flipoff:

No, just showing there are a ton of different credible theories out there that have to do with climate change, and to subscribe to just one based mainly on political pandering is a tad close minded, but yes, in the end only one will end up being the right theory :D

 

[ZedMikey]

Uh Oh, another theory undermining man made global warming :D

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/39991

Just before you posted this link, I had listened to an interview of Dr. Jasper Kirkby (one of the physicists at CERN working on the CLOUD project) in which he directly addressed all the shenanigans people would be pulling before I'd even seen any shenanigans. Funny how predictable people can be sometimes. Oddly... I can't find it in my YouTube history... that's weird. Hrm. Hah! Found it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXx62NhSkt8

I'll sum it up quickly for those that don't want to bother looking deeper themselves. The CLOUD experiment showed only one thing: cosmic rays can cause particle nucleation in the atmosphere. They have NOT done any experiments on whether those particles can eventually grow large enough to seed clouds (yet... they are planning on it, from what I can tell)... and they have NOT done any experiments to determine the net effects of clouds on the climate... In short, the experiment was only about particle nucleation, not about cloud formation or climate change. Further experiments will be needed to dig into that stuff.

Here's another video with Dr. Kirkby talking about CLOUD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSu4ulI6l1A

I've wanted to reply to this early (and in more depth), but I've been too lazy and unmotivated. :redneck: Well, it turns out that one of the guys I follow on YouTube put up a video about this, so I will at least link that instead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvztL9r47MI&feature=feedu

And for those interested (and with a subscription), the published paper in Nature.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html