| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
xracer
Super Burner
Joined: 27 May 2006
Posts: 1529
Location: Michigan
|
 Posted:Fri Aug 24, 2007 5:43 pm Post subject |
    |
|
| Occam wrote: | Sun's activity rules out link to global warming10:44 11 July 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Catherine Brahic
|
Occam, the problem with the way you do things is you only look for what you believe supports your position.
The Lockwood paper is old news, and although several rebuttals have been presented, it's doubtful you will read them as news headlines seem to be your bag. If you go hang out in the solar physics forums, see what they are saying.
There are several previous (2007 as well) peer reviewed papers that are contrary to his findings, even by Lockwood himself.
Also, Mr. Lockwood's most unprofessional news conference (just in time for Al Gore's Live Earth concert, coincidence?) does not improve his credibility amongst his peers.
The Royal Society would publish Dr. Seuss if it supported the AGW position. Why they let this piece of trash out is not puzzling considering it's history of bias. If you'd like to get bombarded with paper after paper refuting Lockwood/Frolich, just say the word.
All I will say is Lockwood's paper, much like the hockey stick, will fade away in a short time. Would you like to bet on that? The difference is it won't take 6 years.
The bottom line is, despite your dislike for my accurate data graphs and particularly the six selective years which was only used to illustrate there has been NO warming since 1998 when removing El Nino (NOT a gw effect). You seem to think that is cherry picking, but in reality had I included that year (El Nino), there would be a huge trend downward, which would have been disingenuous on my part. Rather, I chose well after that (2001) which clearly shows a flat trend, even downward.
The oceans are not warming, perhaps the biggest indicator of what's going on with climate, and also the sun (hint hint).
The troposphere is not warming either, another conundrum for AGW and your beloved climate models.
Observed precipitation does not support AGW.
Temperatures do not support AGW.
In fact, start naming the observational evidence that does support the IPCC AGW hypothesis.
The climate model study you so proudly posted cannot prove anything about climate models reliability because they cannot be validated. All it comments on is solar, gee, why is that? Could it any way be connected to the Lockwood paper? Why does he say five years down the road? Why not next year or the year after? The Met Office is playing the same game.
You guys seem to think the earth is an egg precariously balanced on the head of a pin and that any variation in the "natural" (since humans aren't part of nature right?) scheme of things, the egg will fall off and break.
_________________
St. Croix Auburn |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
mddorogi
Super Burner
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Posts: 1115
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
|
| Posted:Fri Aug 24, 2007 9:02 pm Post subject |
|
|
| Quote: | | The oceans are not warming, perhaps the biggest indicator of what's going on with climate, and also the sun (hint hint). |
Are you baiting????
Ok, I'll bite. I conclude that you subscribe to the belief that solar is the only driver; CO2 has little to no effect; solar is heading down (and the oceans are already showing that); and we will soon enter a cooling trend so that 20 years from now we'll be significantly cooler.
Am I right?
Well, the next 20 years will be interesting to watch. Hey, I can't lose, if it gets warmer, Michigan will become more habitable, and if it gets colder, maybe there will be enough snow to go skiing again.
_________________
Mark
Dell Point Europa |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Occam
Super Burner
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Posts: 1441
Location: Toledo
|
| Posted:Sat Aug 25, 2007 7:36 am Post subject |
|
|
| xracer wrote: |
Occam, the problem with the way you do things is you only look for what you believe supports your position.
|
I fell of my chair!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Random Task
Super Burner
Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 1976
Location: NOVa
|
| Posted:Sun Aug 26, 2007 10:02 pm Post subject |
|
|
| Occam wrote: | | It's not addressd because there is nothing of the kind to address. Your post is is just a long rant of lies, distortions, inconsistencies, self contradctions and utter nonsense demonstrating a complete ignorance of the GW case or a hysterical mind incapable of rational discourse. |
" complete ignorance ".....
" hysterical mind "....
" incapable of rational discourse"....
" a long rant of lies, distortions, inconsistencies, self contradctions and utter nonsense"....
Rational discourse ?
_________________
FIRE.... GOOD...COLD...BAD....
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xracer
Super Burner
Joined: 27 May 2006
Posts: 1529
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted:Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:37 am Post subject |
|
|
A very simple, easy to understand article about recent "record" heat in Phoenix. What is so difficult to understand that as urban areas grow, surface temperature readings become less and less reliable?
The challenge still remains: provide empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis of rising CO2 levels and temperature. Why have global and sea surface (SST) temperatures stalled this decade? AGW theory does not allow for this. You can't have it both ways, either temperatures continue rising linearly following CO2 levels consistently or the hypothesis is false.
More people, more concrete, and lots more heat in Phoenix
An 'urban heat island' effect, fed by the city's growth, is trapping heat and making temperatures soar.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0830/p01s01-wogi.html?page=1
This phenomenon explains why there is such a disparity between rural and urban temperature measurements. It has nothing to do with CO2 levels rising, and the speculation in the article suggesting so, is just that: speculation. They never cite references, just assume it is so because that's what the Team says.
In meantime, Sweden is setting record low temperatures for August. What does that prove? Nothing more than Phoenix other than the LOW temperatures can't be influenced by UHI.
http://www.thelocal.se/8325/
A sincere question for MD and Occam: at what point would you concede AGW (by IPCC standards) is an unsupportable hypothesis? If you claim 'global warming' is also cooling, it is an irrefutable hypothesis and therefore is to be rejected out of hand.
_________________
St. Croix Auburn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mddorogi
Super Burner
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Posts: 1115
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
|
| Posted:Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:26 pm Post subject |
|
|
| Quote: | A sincere question for MD and Occam: at what point would you concede AGW (by IPCC standards) is an unsupportable hypothesis? If you claim 'global warming' is also cooling, it is an irrefutable hypothesis and therefore is to be rejected out of hand.
|
I would concede when some or most of these happen:
a) the temperature trend clearly has reverted to the pre-1980's (or somewhere therabouts) mean
b) glaciers and ice caps have grown back to where they were in 1980
c) USDA hardiness zones have moved back to where they were
d) stratosphere and troposphere temperatures have changed in ways inconsisent with CO2 forcing
e) ocean temperatures have dropped back to where they were
f) models become more sophisticated and no longer support the hypothesis
g) an alternate explanation gains significant traction in the scientific community.
At what point would you concede that the IPCC version of AGW is a supportable hypothesis?
_________________
Mark
Dell Point Europa |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kornfusion
Serious Burner
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 727
Location: Laporte, Indiana
|
| Posted:Sat Sep 08, 2007 12:34 pm Post subject |
|
|
| mddorogi wrote: | | Quote: | A sincere question for MD and Occam: at what point would you concede AGW (by IPCC standards) is an unsupportable hypothesis? If you claim 'global warming' is also cooling, it is an irrefutable hypothesis and therefore is to be rejected out of hand.
|
I would concede when some or most of these happen:
a) the temperature trend clearly has reverted to the pre-1980's (or somewhere therabouts) mean
b) glaciers and ice caps have grown back to where they were in 1980
c) USDA hardiness zones have moved back to where they were
d) stratosphere and troposphere temperatures have changed in ways inconsisent with CO2 forcing
e) ocean temperatures have dropped back to where they were
f) models become more sophisticated and no longer support the hypothesis
g) an alternate explanation gains significant traction in the scientific community.
At what point would you concede that the IPCC version of AGW is a supportable hypothesis? |
So, let me get this straight.
A)You want to see shorter growing seasons and less usable acreage for growing crops.
B)You want more Ice or an Iceage.
C)You want models to become more sophistcated. How about more accurate and all inclusive? We would all like that.
D)You want cooler Oceans. That is happening as we speak. This will also bring down sea levels.
I don't believe your wishes would be conducive to our ever expanding world population.
They would also, btw, add to the GHG's you so abhor by burning ever increasing amounts of fossil fuels or fuels that give off CO2(which is about all of them) in order to stay warm.
As I am hurtling towards a fixed income, I can't say that I like the looks of your scenario Mark. Higher heating costs and higher food costs are definitely going to hurt a lot of people.
_________________
Amaizablaze 4100, 3rd Season, Cornvac mobile unit, Shur-kleen cleaner, '78 Mustang EV |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mddorogi
Super Burner
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Posts: 1115
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
|
| Posted:Sat Sep 08, 2007 1:01 pm Post subject |
|
|
| Quote: | So, let me get this straight.
A)You want to see shorter growing seasons and less usable acreage for growing crops.
B)You want more Ice or an Iceage.
C)You want models to become more sophistcated. How about more accurate and all inclusive? We would all like that.
D)You want cooler Oceans. That is happening as we speak. This will also bring down sea levels.
I don't believe your wishes would be conducive to our ever expanding world population.
They would also, btw, add to the GHG's you so abhor by burning ever increasing amounts of fossil fuels or fuels that give off CO2(which is about all of them) in order to stay warm.
As I am hurtling towards a fixed income, I can't say that I like the looks of your scenario Mark. Higher heating costs and higher food costs are definitely going to hurt a lot of people.
|
I don't necessarily "want" any of those things. Xracer's question was about what would make me concede that AGW is unsupportable. IMO, for it to be unsupportable, many or most of the observations that support it now would have to revert to where they were.
A theory that is not supported by observations has a lot less traction (but still not zero) than one that is. The beauty of AGW is that it IS supported by many observations.
Look at your natural gas and electricity use. Burning a therm of NG gives you 13 lbs of CO2, and a kWh of electricity puts out around 1.5 lb of CO2. In my efficient house, using 500CCF of natural gas per year and 7700 kWh of electricity, the electricity contributes almost twice as much as the natural gas. Even driving my car 8000 miles a year produces more CO2 than heating my house. So, higher air conditioning requirements could be more deleterious to CO2 levels than higher heating requirements!
(Admittedly, my situation is not a good reference since I have lower heating requirements than most others, but I also use somewhat less electricity too. I only infrequently use the AC).
I don't think going back to where we were climate-wise 30 or 40 or 50 years ago can be considered non-conducive to population growth. OTOH, if AGW really is right, THAT might be non-conducive to population growth. Your cooling bill could go up a lot more than your heating bill 
_________________
Mark
Dell Point Europa |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xracer
Super Burner
Joined: 27 May 2006
Posts: 1529
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted:Sat Sep 08, 2007 11:56 pm Post subject |
|
|
Heating will always be more expensive than cooling.
BTW, for those interested, Father Hansen has now "voluntarily" released all source code for his temperature adjustment magic.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2031#comments
Now the real fun begins.
MD, did you say you have a geothermal system? I looked at one called Water Furnace out of Brighton and West Branch.
http://www.waterfurnace.com
| Quote: | | A theory that is not supported by observations has a lot less traction (but still not zero) than one that is. The beauty of AGW is that it IS supported by many observations. |
What are those observations? Please don't refer to Occam's list; you will be greatly embarrassed.
_________________
St. Croix Auburn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kornfusion
Serious Burner
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 727
Location: Laporte, Indiana
|
| Posted:Sun Sep 09, 2007 7:21 am Post subject |
|
|
| mddorogi wrote: | | Quote: | So, let me get this straight.
A)You want to see shorter growing seasons and less usable acreage for growing crops.
B)You want more Ice or an Iceage.
C)You want models to become more sophistcated. How about more accurate and all inclusive? We would all like that.
D)You want cooler Oceans. That is happening as we speak. This will also bring down sea levels.
I don't believe your wishes would be conducive to our ever expanding world population.
They would also, btw, add to the GHG's you so abhor by burning ever increasing amounts of fossil fuels or fuels that give off CO2(which is about all of them) in order to stay warm.
As I am hurtling towards a fixed income, I can't say that I like the looks of your scenario Mark. Higher heating costs and higher food costs are definitely going to hurt a lot of people.
|
I don't necessarily "want" any of those things. Xracer's question was about what would make me concede that AGW is unsupportable. IMO, for it to be unsupportable, many or most of the observations that support it now would have to revert to where they were.
A theory that is not supported by observations has a lot less traction (but still not zero) than one that is. The beauty of AGW is that it IS supported by many observations.
Look at your natural gas and electricity use. Burning a therm of NG gives you 13 lbs of CO2, and a kWh of electricity puts out around 1.5 lb of CO2. In my efficient house, using 500CCF of natural gas per year and 7700 kWh of electricity, the electricity contributes almost twice as much as the natural gas. Even driving my car 8000 miles a year produces more CO2 than heating my house. So, higher air conditioning requirements could be more deleterious to CO2 levels than higher heating requirements!
(Admittedly, my situation is not a good reference since I have lower heating requirements than most others, but I also use somewhat less electricity too. I only infrequently use the AC).
I don't think going back to where we were climate-wise 30 or 40 or 50 years ago can be considered non-conducive to population growth. OTOH, if AGW really is right, THAT might be non-conducive to population growth. Your cooling bill could go up a lot more than your heating bill |
The nice thing about electricity, is that it can be generated from several different sources without using fossil fuels and generating CO2. It's also something we can produce on an individual scale.
Alternatives for keeping cool are more readily available than keeping warm. There are many more options. We can open windows, sit out under the shade trade tree in a hammock with a cold brew, go to the beach, turn on a fan, and so on.
OTOH, keeping warm requires fire, of some sort.
AGW may have supportive observations but many of these have been proven to be flawed. So, in MHO, flawed observations, flawed models, false or misleading data = flawed Theory.
_________________
Amaizablaze 4100, 3rd Season, Cornvac mobile unit, Shur-kleen cleaner, '78 Mustang EV |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mddorogi
Super Burner
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Posts: 1115
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
|
| Posted:Sun Sep 09, 2007 8:23 am Post subject |
|
|
| Quote: | MD, did you say you have a geothermal system? I looked at one called Water Furnace out of Brighton and West Branch.
|
No, I don't have one. I'm moderately familiar with them, though. Generally they're pretty expensive for the individual home, although it can be a good option if you have the right land layout, or a decent sized pond; it also depends on local zoning details (if for example you are pumping water from a vertical field and disposing of the water at grade). If you have your own equipment and can do a lot of the work yourself, that would help a lot, since the installation is a big expense.
There's a company near Whitmore Lake that I was pretty impressed with, but I don't remember the name offhand. Let me know if you want to know and I can dig it out.
I haven't done enough research to prefer one brand over the other. As with anything, it takes a bit of work to see through the marketing hype. Waterfurnace is well known and I would assume one of the better brands.
_________________
Mark
Dell Point Europa |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xracer
Super Burner
Joined: 27 May 2006
Posts: 1529
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted:Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:30 pm Post subject |
|
|
| mddorogi wrote: | | Quote: | MD, did you say you have a geothermal system? I looked at one called Water Furnace out of Brighton and West Branch.
|
No, I don't have one. I'm moderately familiar with them, though. Generally they're pretty expensive for the individual home, although it can be a good option if you have the right land layout, or a decent sized pond; it also depends on local zoning details (if for example you are pumping water from a vertical field and disposing of the water at grade). If you have your own equipment and can do a lot of the work yourself, that would help a lot, since the installation is a big expense.
There's a company near Whitmore Lake that I was pretty impressed with, but I don't remember the name offhand. Let me know if you want to know and I can dig it out.
I haven't done enough research to prefer one brand over the other. As with anything, it takes a bit of work to see through the marketing hype. Waterfurnace is well known and I would assume one of the better brands. |
To me their system looked quite impressive with a best COP of 5.0 in their higher end system. For those wondering what COP is, basically for every $1 in electricity spent, you get $4 back.
I'd seriously consider a heating system if the cost could be held down. They allow you to do your own trench work, but they must install the lines.
One option is to have an open loop system and dump the water into a ditch etc. At 3 GPM drawing from our well, I politely said......no thanks.
Geothermal looks like a great thing, but the cost I think will prevent most folks from going that route.
_________________
St. Croix Auburn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kornfusion
Serious Burner
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 727
Location: Laporte, Indiana
|
| Posted:Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:53 am Post subject |
|
|
In response to the question that started this thread the answer is:
NO.
And neither are the ones who are in charge of collecting the data.
I think we were really close to the truth back when were coming up with the pics of the Hensen gang riding their bikes through the park. 
_________________
Amaizablaze 4100, 3rd Season, Cornvac mobile unit, Shur-kleen cleaner, '78 Mustang EV |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Random Task
Super Burner
Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 1976
Location: NOVa
|
| Posted:Fri Sep 14, 2007 7:02 pm Post subject |
|
|
Oh no.
Surely you don't mean....
The Hensen gang enroute to yet ANOTHER hastily called data manipulation, er....
Management Seminar. Yeah that's it. Management. Data Management Seminar.
This Hensen gang, do you?
_________________
FIRE.... GOOD...COLD...BAD....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kornfusion
Serious Burner
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 727
Location: Laporte, Indiana
|
| Posted:Sat Sep 15, 2007 3:07 pm Post subject |
|
|
| Random Task wrote: | Oh no.
Surely you don't mean....
The Hensen gang enroute to yet ANOTHER hastily called data manipulation, er....
Management Seminar. Yeah that's it. Management. Data Management Seminar.
This Hensen gang, do you? |
The very ones, you got it.
_________________
Amaizablaze 4100, 3rd Season, Cornvac mobile unit, Shur-kleen cleaner, '78 Mustang EV |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
