'An Upper Layer Of Earth's Atmosphere Has Collapsed'

[luckydog]

A very good post EasyEd.

Nothing more than semantics........just like the "White-wash" on climategate

 

[jhefner]

Phil Jones said there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. This assumes that the reader understands all the implications and the very specific meaning of the phrase "statistically significant".

This is apparent from the interview where Jones says it is barely insignificant. Here is the interview.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

I just read it; and not only are the warming trends the same for the periods he was looking at, I wanted to point out the following:

This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.

Notice how small a temperature increase we are talking about! That is less than a degree a year! That is why it falls below the 95% significance level.

Read the rest of the article yourself. The fact is, he states that the amount of global warming is statistically insginificant, and since 2002, the trend has been slightly down. And that is only looking at four ten year periods; at a time we are coming out of the Little Ice Age.

Jones was not using "layman's" language and so interpreting his words from a layman's perspective is inappropriate. Is it the responsibility of the scientists to, in essence, educate the public on the nuances of statistics talk or is it the responsibility of the public to independently learn statistics? Or is it the responsibility of some other body to correctly translate the "science talk" to layman's talk? I understand the nuances of what Jones said but that is only because I do research and statistical analyses. If you want to know the implications either ask or do some research.

I think much of the public simply doesn't understand the disciplines, math and statistics or the complexity of the GW issue but do perceive a threat to their checking accounts. ...

More bashing of the common folk -- "you're too stupid to comprehend global warming." Sure, the temperature data and modeling is available online like you stated, but if we take the time to study it like Eschnebach; we are then bashed for being too uneducated to comprehend it.

Your quote that 1,372 climate researchers are employed just looking at the temperature data shows the weak spot in all of this. You are all too stupid to comprehend this; it takes 1,372 climate researchers to comprehend it all.

That is laughable; considering we can discuss black holes and faster than light travel here; but global warming is too complex for us to understand. Give me a break.... This is 1,372+ researchers keeping themselves gainfully employed ginning a crisis out of something we are too stupid to comprehend.

Water is a good example. ...

... Where you then state that basically the effects of water vapor as a global warming gas have been written out as a zero sum game. (Not because they can prove it; it's just an assumption.) Remember folks; we are talking about a tiny fraction of an increase in temperatures; but they are happy to write off the effects of water vapor as zero.

Don't forget that with the exception of 1,000 foot smokestacks and aircraft, all of man's CO2 emissions are right here on the ground. And sharing this ground with us is lots and lots of green stuff that takes that CO2 and turns it to O2 as part of being alive. Yet, I guess we assume that it does not thrive on this CO2, and grow, which then makes it gobble up more CO2.

So, the conclusions of everything posted so far is:

1. We are too stupid to comprehend global warming. Don't try.
2. We have written off water vapor, volcanos, and radiation from the sun, but not CO2.
3. A bare significant 0.12C per decade temperature rise; which cannot be directly attributed to CO2 gas because the other factors are too complicated, is worth turning over billions of dollars in the global economy; and putting a big hurt on a lot of folks.

EasyEd and KOM.Nausicaa are trying to clobber us with the weight of thousands of researchers, dozens of websites (which are not free, BTW), and hyperbabble rather than indisputable facts. Have yet to hear either address my questions about the data in the U.N. climate model, or the fallout from the results published based on that model.

I am not going to go into personal attacks like KOM; but I just wanted to share with them the fact that politicians who are the most vocal about this are making millions speaking about it, live in more than one McMansion, drive around in convoys of SUVs (which they leave running while they are speaking to keep them cool), and fly in nothing smaller than a Gulfstream (although Pelosi argued for and recieved a 737 executive because she said the Gulfstream was too small for her party from CA.) And some of them even smoke; despite the facts that came out decades after that Lucky Strike ad!

-James

 

[Bjoern]

I find the whole discussion about global warming very good, by the way. Disputable evidence and data aside, it finally gave the world a good kick in the arse to at least start considering going alternative paths in terms of energy generation technology.

 

[Ghostrider]

Great post, EasyEd. Bottom line: Human beings, in general, are too short-lived, greedy, narcissistic, and unconcerned about anything or anyone else but themselves, and their short-term gain/maintaining the status quo to be bothered by AGW. "It won't happen in my lifetime, so who gives a s^&t?"

They contort themselves into the most laughable "logical" rationalizations to justify their beliefs and actions. NASA? the National Academy of Sciences? The AMA? What do they know?

The arrogance lies in thinking that this planet was "put here" for mankind's use and abuse.

 

[Cratermaker]

Problems and Priorities

http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

Yep, people seem to be more interested in themselves (putting food on the table, paying bills, providing for the family) right now then climate legislation. How selfish of them!

Ok, I have another question, not directed at anyone in particular here. For those that think that AGW is real and will kill us all if left unchecked, why don't you do something about it? I don't mean whine on the internet, try to pass unpopular legislation, or do your small part (I use a cloth shopping bag!). I mean get together and come up with a clean, cheaper, alternative energy source that would not just compete against coal and oil, but blow them out of the water! What, too hard? I guess you guys just want the easy way out. But is it really easier to try to sway so many minds to your way of thinking? Just think about it. Coming up with that particular "plan B" would put you guys in the driver's seat and provide all sorts of funds for saving whales, stopping the cutting of rain forest, or whatever you want to do.

In my mind, environmentalists are too short sighted by being so fractured with pet causes. I hope no one sees this as an attack on their viewpoint, it really is intended as a helpful observation that would accommodate both sides of this issue.

 

[Wing_Z]

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?t=40143&p=452234#post452234

 

[Ken Stallings]

So, the conclusions of everything posted so far is:

2. We have written off water vapor, volcanos, and radiation from the sun, but not CO2.
3. A bare significant 0.12C per decade temperature rise; which cannot be directly attributed to CO2 gas because the other factors are too complicated, is worth turning over billions of dollars in the global economy; and putting a big hurt on a lot of folks.

EasyEd and KOM.Nausicaa are trying to clobber us with the weight of thousands of researchers, dozens of websites (which are not free, BTW), and hyperbabble rather than indisputable facts. Have yet to hear either address my questions about the data in the U.N. climate model, or the fallout from the results published based on that model.

I am not going to go into personal attacks like KOM; but I just wanted to share with them the fact that politicians who are the most vocal about this are making millions speaking about it, live in more than one McMansion, drive around in convoys of SUVs (which they leave running while they are speaking to keep them cool), and fly in nothing smaller than a Gulfstream (although Pelosi argued for and recieved a 737 executive because she said the Gulfstream was too small for her party from CA.) And some of them even smoke; despite the facts that came out decades after that Lucky Strike ad!

-James

Powerful comments, James.

I am not willing to put milllions of humans out of work and ruin their families for the sake of a theory based upon a measured temperature increase that is barely measurable. This is especially true when the earth has seen far more significant temperature shifts during pre-industrial human existence. The "Little Ice Age" in Europe around the time of the French Revolution. In fact, that ice age contributed directly to poor food harvests in France which in turn contributed to the population's unrest leading to the French Revolution.

There are two lessons to rightly draw from that.

First, the earth's temperatures do shift.

Second, it is wise to minimize the human impact because often in human history violent upheavals have been caused by such impacts.

Ken

 

[Ken Stallings]

I find the whole discussion about global warming very good, by the way. Disputable evidence and data aside, it finally gave the world a good kick in the arse to at least start considering going alternative paths in terms of energy generation technology.

I personally think the cost of energy has more to do with it.

I also think that in a very cynical way many in the global warming advocacy realize that fact and therefore wish to artificially drive up the costs of energy sources to achieve their desires.

For these people, I suggest they read my post immediately before this one.

At least the French monarchy beheaded on the "National Razor" did not manipulate the ice age's affect on crop failures. I think the anger and vengence visited upon people who manipulate the situation that puts economies in ruin will find a more savage response brought to them. This is something wise people wish to avoid!

Ken

 

[Cratermaker]

Wing_z, Interesting. There is one key difference between what Bill Gates is saying and what I am saying though. I'm saying they need to develop a competitive alternative energy source. At about 18:30, he want's to tax C02 to make alternative energy "competitive" and that, once again, is going to be a hard sell. Just plan from the start that it needs to be actually competitive. Not artificially raising the price of other energy to make it look cheaper.

 

[Cratermaker]

Heh. Ken posted while I was typing that up. I think he and I are on the same page.

 

[KOM.Nausicaa]

Powerful comments, James.

I am not willing to put milllions of humans out of work and ruin their families for the sake of a theory based upon a measured temperature increase that is barely measurable.

Ken

The exact contrary is true. The temperature is not "barely measurable", it is already now clear and present in the lives of millions. Did you see NOOA's latest data? The most underestimated effects of climate change is not that is maybe somewhat warmer in your backyard garden. It is what is happening to fragile geopolitic situations in the poor countries (no news there), for example Darfur: a war of resources, directly related to climate change. Or Bangladesh: 70% of the rice harvest along the river deltas is gone already now due to rising sea level. Those farmers already start to move. Or fishing, declining rapidly in always warmer rivers. Or European nuclear power plants that have to be shut off for the same reasons: water is becoming too warm. That is where the true bomb is ticking: in the exodus of masses of people. That is the stuff wars are made of -- you should know this Ken, and I am sure you do. Or Russia: Already claiming the ice free arctic. "The Arctic has always been Russian" you can hear now. Yeah right.
Climate change is a danger to national security in your nation and in ours. Underestimating the geopolitical effects -- and they are already unfolding -- is a huge mistake.
And it's not true that it kills millions of jobs, that is a myth of the fossil industry. In Germany we have created tens of thousands of jobs in green energy, we are number one in the world there. And it makes an important part of why we are export nation number two worldwide, right after China. We have world class green energy to export, leading in solar, for example.

 

[Cratermaker]

Kudos to Germany.

However, comparing your situation with the USA is comparing apples to oranges. Take a look at a world population density map. See Germany? See the USA? Guess what? The areas that solar and wind work best in the USA are the least populated! Now look at what it would take to move that energy from those areas to the highly populated areas. Hint: Germany is smaller than some of our states.

Solar and wind will, at best, never be more than a supplemental source in the USA. Next solution please!

 

[Ken Stallings]

Naus,

The last three consecutive summers here in New Mexico have been cooler than the last and the winters colder than the last.

I see clear evidence of a cooling cycle right now and it seemed to have started three years ago.

It is now nearly August and we've had more days here in the seventies than in the high nineties!

This last winter was one of the coldest and wettest in memory and that includes the memories of people who have lived here for more than thirty years.

I say again, I am not willing to harm the world economy, nor my own nation's, based on the evidence you quote. Because for every number you can quote, I can come back with information that contradicts yours and worse, undermines much of the data you bring.

Furthermore, the folks on my side of the discussions universally say they support rational development of alternative energy sources. I will also say that Americans have put their money where their mouths are by the very impressive improvements in our domestic environment.

I will put the environment in America up against European nations and believe it clearly superior to every single Asian one. And I have the advantages of spending considerable time in many of these nations. I will also place my faith in the natural innovation and creativity of free enterprise and private entrepreneurial forces vice government orchestration. When these innovations are ready, you could not stop their adoption by force. And until they are ready no amount of coercion or false subsidizing shall make them more efficient.

Ken

 

[Ghostrider]

Sooner or later, you're going to have to solve mankind's addiction to fossil fuels. they are finite resources. Question is, how far down this destructive, dead-end road are we going to go before we face that hard reality? How badly do we need trash this delicate ecosystem before we wise up?

Oh, I forgot, In 40 years or so, we'll all be dead anyway, so who cares, right? Don't inconvenience us, let the suckers, I mean people of the future figure it out. Pass that buck onto future generations. kind of like social security. kind of like everything else.

And Ken, my goodness, I am shocked that you would throw out your 3 year personal New Mexico climate anecdote as having any relevance whatsoever. Come on, you can do better than that.

 

[norab]

I have read all 7 pages of this thread and, regardless of my personal views on the issue, it seems apparent to me that there will be no agreement or concession made by either side and I would respectfully suggest that both sides "Agree to disagree" and let the issue come to a rest. I have seen other forums ripped apart by the loss of civility and antagonism generated by such arguments and hope that for everyone's sake this can be avoided before too much bad blood and personal animosity develop. My 2 cents

 

[Ghostrider]

I think that's wise.

 

[KOM.Nausicaa]

Kudos to Germany.

However, comparing your situation with the USA is comparing apples to oranges. Take a look at a world population density map. See Germany? See the USA? Guess what? The areas that solar and wind work best in the USA are the least populated! Now look at what it would take to move that energy from those areas to the highly populated areas. Hint: Germany is smaller than some of our states.

Solar and wind will, at best, never be more than a supplemental source in the USA. Next solution please!

I am aware of the differences between Germany and the USA. I would however not be so fast to dismiss the stuff we are working on. We have for example some revolutionary projects going on in Africa, where we are working on stowing energy from solar directly into the sand and earth and new ways of delivering it. There have been some major breakthroughs there.

 

[CybrSlydr]

And Ken, my goodness, I am shocked that you would throw out your 3 year personal New Mexico climate anecdote as having any relevance whatsoever. Come on, you can do better than that.

But it's ok for the AGW crowd to throw out graphs and figures utilizing data from equally as ridiculously short time periods and expect it to count as "climate" data?

However, I'll agree that it's well beyond time to find that next bigger and better fuel.

Not to mention, it's time to start utilizing industrial hemp. Now that's a miracle plant if there ever was one!

 

[KOM.Nausicaa]

Naus,

The last three consecutive summers here in New Mexico have been cooler than the last and the winters colder than the last.
(...)
This last winter was one of the coldest and wettest in memory and that includes the memories of people who have lived here for more than thirty years.

Hello Ken,

first about that "cooling": no, there is no cooling going on in the global climate curve. I will say right away that I made the same mistake of understanding in the beginning. It took me years of real time and real money -- not just internet reading -- to understand some of those mechanisms. I won't blame anyone who makes some of those mistakes. What you are doing there is the old misunderstanding between weather and climate. This is also used on a regular basis by the denier industry, sadly enough. The climate curve goes up, and there has been no cooling whatsoever. It does not go up in a continuous way, there are faster and slower periods, due to many factors (you can clearly see volcano eruptions on the curve for example) but it goes up and up. There is no cooling there. Now about weather: that is a entirely different story. How your winter is in, let's say north America last year, or Mexico three years back has nothing to do, in the way you assume it does, with the global climate curve. In Peru this year, there is a massive unprecedented cold, with many dead. You can read about it right now in the news. The mistake people make is to imagine it will get warmer everywhere, winter and summer alike. It's much more complicated than that. What we will see are weather extremes, as much in warm as in cold periods. And that is exactly what is happening. Weather extremes are increasing rapidly in numbers everywhere on the globe. Places that weren't used to it will see heat waves, like Moscow right now with 40°C (104F), or the record heatwave (strongest since 1880) we had in Europe last month, others cold waves (polar winter in Peru). Last year we had a similar pattern, the year before as well. Temperature records are broken everywhere on the globe in an increasing rate towards both ends of the spectrum. You will also see increasingly strong storms, or storms in unusual places (we had for examples already two tornados in northern Europe this year, one over Helgoland, the other over Belgium, where I live). You will see periods of strong rain and drought. Global warming is a trend towards weather extremes most and for all.

Because for every number you can quote, I can come back with information that contradicts yours and worse, undermines much of the data you bring.

No, because there is none. As I said before, there is not a single global climate data set that would disproof global climate change. It simply can't be produced. That is why the deniers, or let's call them 'skeptics' always produce local sets -- if they are not more extreme than that in their crusade and accuse the global sets to be outright falsified. As far as the local sets, or other 'skeptic' arguments, I know them all and feel very confident I can debunk them. For someone who doesn't want to spend money in books, there are also some good websites around doing a great in job in debunking some of the most spread myths.

 

[KOM.Nausicaa]

But it's ok for the AGW crowd to throw out graphs and figures utilizing data from equally as ridiculously short time periods and expect it to count as "climate" data?

However, I'll agree that it's well beyond time to find that next bigger and better fuel.

Not to mention, it's time to start utilizing industrial hemp. Now that's a miracle plant if there ever was one!

Lol Cybr. I think you have watched the 'Great Global Warming Swindle'-swindle movie, have you ? :toilet::d