brian0918 Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 (edited) Somehow, after reading this i just cannot take that site for serious. And until you identify the "somehow" that caused you to have that emotional response to that statement, your post cannot be taken seriously. Edited November 1, 2011 by brian0918 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 Scientific Heresy by Matt Ridley url: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/1/scientific-heresy.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 (edited) In that case read this Long-Term Instrumental and Reconstructed Temperature Records Contradict Anthropogenic Global Warming Horst-Joachim Lüdecke (Submitted on 9 Oct 2011) Monthly instrumental temperature records from 5 stations in the northern hemisphere are analyzed, each of which is local and over 200 years in length, as well as two reconstructed long-range yearly records - from a stalagmite and from tree rings that are about 2000 years long. In the instrumental records, the steepest 100-year temperature fall happened in the 19th century and the steepest rise in the 20th century, both events being of about the same magnitude. Evaluation by the detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA) yields Hurst exponents that are in good agreement with the literature. DFA, Monte Carlo simulations, and synthetic records reveal that both 100-year events were caused by external trends. In contrast to this, the reconstructed records show stronger 100-year rises and falls as quite common during the last 2000 years. These results contradict the hypothesis of an unusual (anthropogenic) global warming during the 20th century. As a hypothesis, the sun's magnetic field, which is correlated with sunspot numbers, is put forward as an explanation. The long-term low-frequency fluctuations in sunspot numbers are not detectable by the DFA in the monthly instrumental records, resulting in the common low Hurst exponents. The same does not hold true for the 2000-year-long reconstructed records, which explains both their higher Hurst exponents and the higher probabilities of strong 100-year temperature fluctuations. A long-term synthetic record that embodies the reconstructed sunspot number fluctuations includes the different Hurst exponents of both the instrumental and the reconstructed records and, therefore, corroborates the conjecture. http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1841v1 Edited November 2, 2011 by brian0918 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pigsaw Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 From another topic "A sceptic becomes a believer" I was asked why do i think that GW must be a bad thing(i think that this question would be offtopic there). So let me ask you now: What are the possible pro's of GW? Are there any bad symptoms you can think of for those possible pro's? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 This needs much more love so I will repost it here. Long-Term Instrumental and Reconstructed Temperature Records Contradict Anthropogenic Global Warming Horst-Joachim Lüdecke (Submitted on 9 Oct 2011) Quote Monthly instrumental temperature records from 5 stations in the northern hemisphere are analyzed, each of which is local and over 200 years in length, as well as two reconstructed long-range yearly records - from a stalagmite and from tree rings that are about 2000 years long. In the instrumental records, the steepest 100-year temperature fall happened in the 19th century and the steepest rise in the 20th century, both events being of about the same magnitude. Evaluation by the detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA) yields Hurst exponents that are in good agreement with the literature. DFA, Monte Carlo simulations, and synthetic records reveal that both 100-year events were caused by external trends. In contrast to this, the reconstructed records show stronger 100-year rises and falls as quite common during the last 2000 years. These results contradict the hypothesis of an unusual (anthropogenic) global warming during the 20th century. As a hypothesis, the sun's magnetic field, which is correlated with sunspot numbers, is put forward as an explanation. The long-term low-frequency fluctuations in sunspot numbers are not detectable by the DFA in the monthly instrumental records, resulting in the common low Hurst exponents. The same does not hold true for the 2000-year-long reconstructed records, which explains both their higher Hurst exponents and the higher probabilities of strong 100-year temperature fluctuations. A long-term synthetic record that embodies the reconstructed sunspot number fluctuations includes the different Hurst exponents of both the instrumental and the reconstructed records and, therefore, corroborates the conjecture. http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1841v1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pigsaw Posted November 11, 2011 Report Share Posted November 11, 2011 Interesting... Sadly, it is a game of authority... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted November 11, 2011 Report Share Posted November 11, 2011 Interesting... Sadly, it is a game of authority... What's that mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pigsaw Posted November 11, 2011 Report Share Posted November 11, 2011 There are perfectly good proofs for GW. There are perfectly good proofs aginst man made GW. Objectively making a conclusion on the topic for a casual man is almost impossible Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted November 11, 2011 Report Share Posted November 11, 2011 (edited) There are perfectly good proofs for GW. There are perfectly good proofs aginst man made GW. These are the assertions you have failed to demonstrate. Edited November 11, 2011 by brian0918 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pigsaw Posted November 11, 2011 Report Share Posted November 11, 2011 I did not even try to demonstrate the second one >.< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted November 11, 2011 Report Share Posted November 11, 2011 (edited) Objectively making a conclusion on the topic for a casual man is almost impossible Not true. Which of the too hypothesis are the simplest? 1) That humans at our present low state of technology and minute population density relative to earths capacity can somehow accidentally affect the "perpetually static" climate on a global scale via the output of certain gasses that are negligible compared even to the output of a single volcano. or 2) That the earth has undergone extreme climate change throughout it's entire history, that it is undergoing it now, that it is completely natural, not out of the ordinary and expected as a result of (surprise) the sun which is the source of temperature and therefore climate on this planet. Edited November 11, 2011 by EC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 Science doesn't give a damn what sounds simpler. It's often counter intuitive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 (edited) And it is science, reason, and the evidence that is on my side. Along with Occam's Razor. Provide even one shred of evidence or data that supports AGW that hasn't been gathered or misinterpreted by climatogists that start their entire study from a mistaken premise and then proceed to manipulate the data such that it weakly fits their preconceived notions based on a bad implicit philosophy or accept that the whole thing is just an arbitrary construct created to further their implicit socio-political agenda. Edited November 12, 2011 by EC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 And it is science, reason, and the evidence that is on my side. Along with Occam's Razor. Provide even one shred of evidence or data that supports AGW that hasn't been gathered or misinterpreted by climatogists that start their entire study from a mistaken premise and then proceed to manipulate the data such that it weakly fits their preconceived notions based on a bad implicit philosophy or accept that the whole thing is just an arbitrary construct created to further their implicit socio-political agenda. I think he was just making the point that Occam's Razor is technically wrong, and officially deprecated by Dr. Peikoff in Induction in Physics and Philosophy lecture #5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pigsaw Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 Not true. Which of the too hypothesis are the simplest? 1) That humans at our present low state of technology and minute population density relative to earths capacity can somehow accidentally affect the "perpetually static" climate on a global scale via the output of certain gasses that are negligible compared even to the output of a single volcano. or 2) That the earth has undergone extreme climate change throughout it's entire history, that it is undergoing it now, that it is completely natural, not out of the ordinary and expected as a result of (surprise) the sun which is the source of temperature and therefore climate on this planet. Which of this is simpler? 1- Teh Flying Spaghetti Monster is pushing all the things down and that is what we like to call gravity(midgets are blessed people) 2- Some mumbo jumbo that implies that objects of bigger mass attract other objects, which is made up by people who do not even know what mass is. Also, they put parallel universes in our own to explain their rotten theory. Btw, another evidence of GW is the reducing number of pirates Now, ofcourse i am joking I'm saying that raw data shows increase in CO2 and other GH gasses, and increase in temperature while the index of Sun's radiation is decreasing. Also, increase in hurricanes. Now why is that happening, and what does that mean, THAT is where things get complicated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 (edited) I'm saying that raw data shows increase in CO2 and other GH gasses, and increase in temperature while the index of Sun's radiation is decreasing. Also, increase in hurricanes. The rest was nonsense. I've linked to a paper that shows just the opposite on the most prestigious peer review site in all of physics. And show your evidence that there is an increase in the average number of hurricanes per season. And an increase within what time bounds? And how do these time bounds compare to the number of hurricanes on average in the long term record of earth (at least the last couple thousand years). Also point to any evidence that shows a causal link between the number of hurricanes and CO2 and other gasses in the atmosphere. Edited November 12, 2011 by EC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pigsaw Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 I did Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 (edited) 1885-2000 also the 100 year period of increased sunspot activity. Only slight increase over time that directly corresponds. http://www.nhc.noaa....hist_lowres.gif Also this from NIPCC No Long Term Trend In Atlantic Hurricane Numbers http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/jun/15jun2011a6.html Edited November 12, 2011 by EC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 (edited) Graphs from that paper showing temperature correspondence with sunspot activity over 2000 year record. http://s1198.photobu...%20Mean%20Temp/ Edited November 12, 2011 by EC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pigsaw Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 reply #112 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 (edited) The graph you linked to only shows storms of less than two days termed "shorties" that have only been well documented in the satellite era as explained in the second link I just added to post #148 above. They explain it occurs because they: could be significantly impacted by changing observational methodologies and technologies, as short-duration storms are presently identified much more readily than they were prior to the satellite era, which really began around 1966. Villarini et al. conclude their paper by saying: "Based on our results, it appears that the long-term record of the basin-wide shorties is sufficiently contaminated by spurious components to mask any climatically induced variation within the raw data. Moreover, based on these results and those of Vecchi and Knutson [2008] it is unlikely that a homogeneous record of Atlantic tropical storm counts would contain a statistically significant positive trend since the late 1800s. Our results provide a context for interpreting studies exploring trend behavior in the North Atlantic tropical storm activity starting prior to the 1940s. In particular, the conclusions of certain studies reporting large secular increases in North Atlantic tropical storm activity in which shorties are included [e.g., Holland and Webster, 2007; Mann et al., 2007] could be affected by what we interpret as likely spurious nonphysical trends unless an alternative physical explanation can be uncovered for the pronounced increase in shorties starting from the middle of the 20th century." Improved technologies have improved our ability to detect and warn of both violent local storms and hurricanes. It appears very likely that this better detection has been responsible for apparent trends in frequencies of these storms frequently attributed to global warming. Bold mine Edited November 12, 2011 by EC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 (edited) Also I will add a graph from Wikipedia showing mean global temperature change over a 5.5 million year period. http://en.wikipedia....mate_Change.png And over 65 million years. http://commons.wikim...mate_Change.png 540 million years http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png Edited November 12, 2011 by EC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 (edited) and increase in temperature while the index of Sun's radiation is decreasing. Explaining this from the Ludecke paper earlier linked to... An explanation of the strong downward dip might be that the eective time resolution of both SPA12 and MOB is in reality about 3-4 years, while the reconstructed temperature for each year is a 3-4 year mean. A similar dip on F2(s) graphs in sea surface temperature (SST) records was found and the hypothesis advanced that it has to do with the influence of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and the El Ni~no southern oscillation [42]. Figure 9 provides an explanation of the dierent Hurst exponents in the instrumental and reconstructed records: the detrended fluctuation analysis DFA2 removes the sunspot fluctuations as linear trends from the instrumental records that results in their low Hurst exponents. It was already shown due to Eq. (9) that F2(s) is only feasible for s N/4, hence for monthly records that are about 220 years in length the limit of about s = 50 years holds. As a consequence, series that are not distinctly over 250 years long are basically too short to reveal by DFA2 the extreme long-term persistence caused by the sun. In Figure 4, in fact, no cross over is visible, except for a rather feeble one for Paris. However, in the case of the longer time frame, the situation changes. If we look at the CSS synthetic record as well as at SPA12 and MOB, the SSN sunspot numbers correspond here to a fast uctuation, which increases the Hurst exponent 2 and is not removed by DFA2. I.e., there is a time delay of sunspot effects and local (earth-bound) influence from other sources to the mean temperature measurements. Edited November 12, 2011 by EC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 In a small bit of good news, Canada has pulled out of the Kyoto protocol. Also, in the recent talks in Durban, the U.S. (Obama administration) was far less accommodating than environmentalists wanted, effectively putting things off for a few years. Only the Europeans -- amid all their other economic woes -- still seriously want to sacrifice themselves to Gaia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 In 2007, "The Canadian" did a story titled "4.5 billion people could die of Global Warming by 2012". Are we there yet? JASKN 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.