Global Warming

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: xyzer Parrot there you go again ignoring the text? I used the word predicted as in the graph right below the one you posted? The predicted trend line for warming doesn't show what has happened since 1998.Actuality trumps predictions? Now look here???? Wnen first informed that actual datal did not agree with the data alleged by the models used by the perpetrators of the global warming scare, the original data was said to be erroneous and corrected? No mention of the corrections having been substituted in the original studies that led to the dooms day conclusions? Do you have evidence of the extent of the corrections? Now when subsequent temp measurements don't agree with the preicted rise(in fact they show no rise(or very little rise in a decade) you ignore the chart that show the facts? Whats this about ignoring truth and updated data to stick by predictive models that used erroneous data and are outdated? Do I hear the 'corn flakes" crunching?

Eh? I don't understand what you're saying. The line in the second graph is CO2 data, not predicted or actual temperature data. It has nothing to do with what you and I are talking about.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: Foxfyre And I also fret and fume when those well-credentialed scientists joining the ranks of the skeptics aren't getting the same media attention as the pro-AGW group: http://www.speroforum.com/site/artic...idarticle=9469

Every single name I saw on that list (which originally appeared on Senator Inhofe's Blog, lol) has been a GW skeptic for decades. Not a single one of them has recently changed their position on the issue. In fact, Idon't think most of them have ever accepted the theory. There may be some AGW theory proponents having second thoughts out there, but these certainly aren't some of them.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Did you guys see the 20/20 report by John Stossel?

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/s...3751219&page=1

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: EnragedParrot Every single name I saw on that list (which originally appeared on Senator Inhofe's Blog, lol) has been a GW skeptic for decades. Not a single one of them has recently changed their position on the issue. In fact, Idon't think most of them have ever accepted the theory. There may be some AGW theory proponents having second thoughts out there, but these certainly aren't some of them.

You didn't even read the stuff in the link did you. If you had you would have seen how absurd your statement about them is.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Did you guys see the 20/20 report by John Stossel? ABC News: The Globe Is Warming, but Why?

A good find, Marilyn, and reinforces the same stuff we skeptics are finding from other sources too.

The very fact that global warming is pretty much off the evening news and off the front pages suggests that fewer media gurus are willing to stick their necks out on the pro-AGW side of this too.

I am not quite, but am almost ready to make a bold prediction that within one year we will not be seeing this as an issue at all. It's probably a bit too much to ask the more fanatical gurus to publicly admit they were wrong, but I think we'll be seeing a lot fewer, if any, bold pronouncements of doom and gloom. And maybe, must maybe, we will then stop scaring little kids (and a few big kids on this thread) with a gloom and doom scenario that never had much, if any, substance behind it.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: EnragedParrot His graphs that reveal what temperatures have been doing are the exact same data I provided you with earlier, Xyzer. They quite clearly show that temperatures have been steadily rising since 1998. You should all ready know this, since you were looking at the exact same graph in my earlier post. . Look familiar?

Actually, you could just as well draw a straight line at the .1 degree mark on the Temperature Anomaly scale and it would match the data perfectly well. What is there to say that a horizontal line is any worse than your sloping line.

Quote by: EnragedParrot Anyway, here is a much better analysis of what temperatures have been doing over the past nine years.

My actual background is more in physics than in mathematices, but I work with statistical data in my daily job.

I find that it is far better to work with rolling averages than to plot individual points of datum and superimpose an arbitrary line. If the data are collected at regular intervals and one takes a rolling average of 5, 10, 15, etc datum points, that presents a far better picture than a jumble of individual points.

Of course, if one has an agenda, maybe a better picture isn't a good idea.

Keith

[EnragedParrot]

Deleted.

[xyzer]

Parrot

Quote by: EnragedParrot Anyway, here is a much better analysis of what temperatures have been doing over the past nine years.

How come your "Open Mind" site uses only the last 7 years in the chart showing warming is increasing, when the same mind set said the the latter part of the 90s was very warm? Originally it was claimed that 1998 was the warmest year in the warmest decade since the begining of the last century? Is it proper to then post a chart of temps from 2000 to 2006?

Could it just be that if the author had used a graph including the 90s that the temp average would not be increasing in the last few years? This also exposes the tendency to make a graph depicting what you want it to depict rather than a meaningful one?

Is such deliberate misinformation indicative of fact? Or a way to fool the public?

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger Actually, you could just as well draw a straight line at the .1 degree mark on the Temperature Anomaly scale and it would match the data perfectly well. What is there to say that a horizontal line is any worse than your sloping line.

You couldn't do that, actually. You couldn't do that at all... The given line has the lowest mean squared error, and so it's the best fit to the data. It's not just an, "arbitrary line."

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: xyzer Parrot How come your "Open Mind" site uses only the last 7 years in the chart showing warming is increasing, when the same mind set said the the latter part of the 90s was very warm? Originally it was claimed that 1998 was the warmest year in the warmest decade since the begining of the last century? Is it proper to then post a chart of temps from 2000 to 2006?

... You might try going back and, y'know, reading the article. That might help.

Both of these graphs are from the article. Both extend to the 90's or further. Both show a significant warming trend.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: Foxfyre You didn't even read the stuff in the link did you. If you had you would have seen how absurd your statement about them is.

Let's see, Claude Allegre, Nir Shaviv, David Evans, Reid Bryson, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ian Clark... Yup. Looks like I was spot on. I can't remember any of these guys ever voicing support for the theory. If any of them did change their opinion, it certainly wasn't recently.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: EnragedParrot Let's see, Claude Allegre, Nir Shaviv, David Evans, Reid Bryson, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ian Clark... Yup. Looks like I was spot on. I can't remember any of these guys ever voicing support for the theory. If any of them did change their opinion, it certainly wasn't recently.

It was recent enough for some of them to have signed on to that long list of scientists supporting the AGW theory that the pro-AGW advocates are so fond of waving and insisting that it is a conclusive scientific consensus. If you had actually read any of the information in the link, you would have known that.

[EnragedParrot]

I have no idea what list you're talking about, Foxfyre.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: EnragedParrot I have no idea what list you're talking about, Foxfyre.

Of course you don't. She's not talking about how the coming apocolypse is going to kill us all. She's talking about reading and understanding.

Keith

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: EnragedParrot I have no idea what list you're talking about, Foxfyre.

You don't? Hmmm. I wonder then who is that bunch of scientists who tell you what to think when you don't understand something? You keep posting links to the stuff they signed off on. I thought you actually knew what you were posting?

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: Foxfyre You don't? Hmmm. I wonder then who is that bunch of scientists who tell you what to think when you don't understand something? You keep posting links to the stuff they signed off on. I thought you actually knew what you were posting?

Are you on drugs?

[GHook93]

Solution to Global Warming and Foreign Oil Dependance --> 2 Technologies

Is in 2 technology that the world currently has!

[rmnunez]

This is the prototype:



This plant operated between 1982 and 1989 in Spain, and consistently generated 50kW output of green energy. The tower rises 200 metres, the collection area is about 240 metres across and has a surface of about 45 thousand square metres. How much larger would the Australian project producing 200 Megawatts have to be?

Picture a 260-foot-diameter cylinder taller than the Sears Tower encircled by a two-mile-diameter transparent canopy at ground level. About 8 feet tall at the perimeter, where Davey has his feet planted, the solar collector will gradually slope up to a height of 50 to 60 feet at the tower's base. Business 2.0: How Australia got hot for solar power - Aug. 2, 2006

The Australian project is supposed to provide clean energy for 100 thousand homes, how many would you need for a city of just a million people?

[GHook93]

I caught wind of this while watching Modern Marvels. They said 650 would be needed to power the whole US. We have plenty of room in many sunshine states like NV, AZ, TX, OK etc. we need to lobby the government for this.

The first step is to vote against the Anti-Environment Nazi!

Quote by: rmnunez This is the prototype: This plant operated between 1982 and 1989 in Spain, and consistently generated 50kW output of green energy. The tower rises 200 metres, the collection area is about 240 metres across and has a surface of about 45 thousand square metres. How much larger would the Australian project producing 200 Megawatts have to be? The Australian project is supposed to provide clean energy for 100 thousand homes, how many would you need for a city of just a million people?

[rmnunez]

China Balking on Climate Change Goals:

Beijing is reluctant to set itself international targets to fight climate change without financial assistance from industrialized countries, a senior climate change official, Gao Guangsheng, said on Thursday.

That sounds like a good excuse, but I think the industrialized aren't allowed it.

Gao was scathing about industrialized countries' limited efforts to help developing nations cut greenhouse gas emissions, despite commitments under the UN's convention on climate change to share clean energy technologies. "Only when I know what technology I have can I calculate how much I can reduce emissions; only when I have funding assurances," said Gao, director general of climate change at the National Development and Reform Commission. Gao cited the example of previous agreements between China and the US to transfer clean power-generation technology that he said had been blocked by Congress. He also recounted a conversation with the Danish environment minister, whom he had asked for assistance to transfer advanced wind power technology to China, but had been told it was a matter for companies, not government. "If that's always the attitude, then how can we have international cooperation?" said Gao, speaking to a small number of reporters. "Developed countries should abide by the demands of the (UN) treaty and offer favorable terms, or give for free, the environmentally friendly technology that developing countries desperately need." China wary on international climate goals | Environment | Reuters

I don't think China really needs assistance with this, they are planning to put a man on the moon, they've got technology.