Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

2012 The Hottest Year on Record...


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#16 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,561 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 03:31 AM

hey twylyght what do you think that graphic you posted means? be specific


Global warming and cooling existed LONG before people did

#17 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,384 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 03:32 AM

that doesn't refute human influenced climate change

maybe you posted in the wrong thread? idk

#18 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,561 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 03:37 AM

that doesn't refute human influenced climate change

maybe you posted in the wrong thread? idk


Ok... so I take the extrapolations of the totality of global climate and compare it to the sliver in time to what has been presented... and I am the one that is closed minded?

#19 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,384 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 03:42 AM

what are you even talking about?

is the implication that, because climate has changed over the course of billions of years, humans cannot have an effect on it? if so, please explain

e: if not, please clarify whatever point you're trying to make, rather than expecting everyone else to guess

#20 Chimera

Chimera

    Membrane

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,207 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 03:46 AM

The only thing I got from twylyght's graph is that it's gon get a lot hotter

#21 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,561 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 03:57 AM

what are you even talking about?

is the implication that, because climate has changed over the course of billions of years, humans cannot have an effect on it? if so, please explain


This is the evidence in its totality. What has been spoon fed to us over the past 2 decades is that we are killing ourselves due to our collective carbon footprint.

When I dare to crtically think and research the issue, it stands to reason that such a conclusion is FAR from a slam dunk like it has been claimed. No one is disputing that that the earth is warming. The dispute (and a reasonable one at that) is whether people have the significant effect that the current craze is claiming. Looking at the big picture, our existence is barely a blip, and it is frankly quite arrogant to attribute such powers in the face of relatively small windows of relative time.

Take a look at what the scientific community KNEW a hundred years ago and see how that stacks up to today. Turns out, we weren't as right as we thought we were. I expect that our track record will continue with what we "know" today.

The scientific method works because the methodology is predicated upon an experiment bearing out results. We formulate an understanding according to the paradigm and then test it. When we find enough anomalies to refute it, the paradigm shifts to something else that works for us. It doesn't necessarily mean that we understand anything better... we just know more about our environment and how to manipulate it to the ends that we seek.

That said, there is better evidence that global climate is affected by solar activity, oceanic activity, and volcanic activity than what mankind has created in the totality of its history. Just because Tom Brokaw says that New York City will be underwater by 2010 on the authority of the leading voices of the global alarmist community doesn't mean that it's true.

#22 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,384 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 04:09 AM

the reason i asked you to elaborate is that what you posted could easily qualify as evidence in support of mankind's ability to affect climate. here's a good source on that:

http://www.skeptical...ntermediate.htm

summary:

Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2.


Our climate is governed by the following principle: when you add more heat to our climate, global temperatures rise. Conversely, when the climate loses heat, temperatures fall. Say the planet is in positive energy imbalance. More energy is coming in than radiating back out to space. This is known as radiative forcing, the change in net energy flow at the top of the atmosphere. When the Earth experiences positive radiative forcing, our climate accumulates heat and global temperature rises (not monotonically, of course, internal variability will add noise to the signal).

How much does temperature change for a given radiative forcing? This is determined by the planet's climate sensitivity. The more sensitive our climate, the greater the change in temperature. The most common way of describing climate sensitivity is the change in global temperature if atmospheric CO2 is doubled. What does this mean? The amount of energy absorbed by CO2 can be calculated using line-by-line radiative transfer codes. These results have been experimentally confirmed by satellite and surface measurements. The radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 Watts per square metre (W/m2) (IPCC AR4 Section 2.3.1).

So when we talk about climate sensitivity to doubled CO2, we're talking about the change in global temperatures from a radiative forcing of 3.7 Wm-2. This forcing doesn't necessarily have to come from CO2. It can come from any factor that causes an energy imbalance.


Some recent analyses used the well-observed forcing and response to major volcanic eruptions during the twentieth century. A few studies examined palaeoclimate reconstructions from the past millennium or the period around 12,000 years ago when the planet came out of a global ice age (Last Glacial Maximum).

What can we conclude from this? We have a number of independent studies covering a range of periods, studying different aspects of climate and employing various methods of analysis. They all yield a broadly consistent range of climate sensitivity with a most likely value of 3°C for a doubling of CO2.


CO2 has caused an accumulation of heat in our climate. The radiative forcing from CO2 is known with high understanding and confirmed by empirical observations. The climate response to this heat build-up is determined by climate sensitivity.

Ironically, when skeptics cite past climate change, they're in fact invoking evidence for strong climate sensitivity and net positive feedback. Higher climate sensitivity means a larger climate response to CO2 forcing. Past climate change actually provides evidence that humans can affect climate now.



#23 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,561 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 04:13 AM

http://scholar.googl...ved=0CDEQgQMwAA

#24 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,384 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 04:17 AM

please read your articles. then, explain what you think they mean

#25 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,561 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 04:18 AM

please read your articles. then, explain what you think they mean


Re-read previous long post. Already summarized.

I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.

#26 Chimera

Chimera

    Membrane

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,207 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 04:31 AM

Come on guys, quit arguing! Don't you know there will be half a billion climate refugees by 2010, and Arctic summers will be ice free by 2012? We don't have time for bickering.

#27 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,384 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 04:43 AM

Re-read previous long post. Already summarized.

I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.

This is the evidence in its totality. What has been spoon fed to us over the past 2 decades is that we are killing ourselves due to our collective carbon footprint.

When I dare to crtically think and research the issue, it stands to reason that such a conclusion is FAR from a slam dunk like it has been claimed. No one is disputing that that the earth is warming. The dispute (and a reasonable one at that) is whether people have the significant effect that the current craze is claiming. Looking at the big picture, our existence is barely a blip, and it is frankly quite arrogant to attribute such powers in the face of relatively small windows of relative time.

Take a look at what the scientific community KNEW a hundred years ago and see how that stacks up to today. Turns out, we weren't as right as we thought we were. I expect that our track record will continue with what we "know" today.

The scientific method works because the methodology is predicated upon an experiment bearing out results. We formulate an understanding according to the paradigm and then test it. When we find enough anomalies to refute it, the paradigm shifts to something else that works for us. It doesn't necessarily mean that we understand anything better... we just know more about our environment and how to manipulate it to the ends that we seek.

That said, there is better evidence that global climate is affected by solar activity, oceanic activity, and volcanic activity than what mankind has created in the totality of its history. Just because Tom Brokaw says that New York City will be underwater by 2010 on the authority of the leading voices of the global alarmist community doesn't mean that it's true.


i have highlighted your "summary" of the literature on "solar variation." as you will see, nothing is highlighted.

if you had actually read some of those articles (aside from the ones that are incredibly dated), you would have found that the vast majority of climate change cannot be attributed to "solar variation." here are some studies that were actually performed this century which i'm assuming you already plan to ignore:

http://thingsbreak.f...rgy-balance.pdf

The individual contributions to the observed temperature
increase of about 0:55 C since the 1950s are illustrated in Fig. 3c.
Our total estimate of 0:51 C (0:450:57 C) is close to the
observed temperature change. The largest positive contribution
of 0:85 C (0:571:13 C) is from greenhouse gases and compares
well with the values estimated by optimal fingerprint studies5,6,20
(see Supplementary Information). Expressed as a fraction of
the total warming, greenhouse gases contributed 166% (120
215%). The net cooling from the direct and indirect aerosol
forcing is 􀀀0:45 C (􀀀0:78 to 􀀀0:16 C), thereby offsetting 􀀀44%
(􀀀73 to 􀀀28%) of the greenhouse induced warming. It is thus
extremely likely (>95% probability) that the greenhouse gas
induced warming since the mid-twentieth century was larger
than the observed rise in global average temperatures, and
extremely likely that anthropogenic forcings were by far the
dominant cause of warming. The natural forcing contribution
since 1950 is near zero.


http://arxiv.org/PS_...0901.0515v1.pdf

The variation with time from 1956-2002 of the globally averaged rate of ionization produced
by cosmic rays in the atmosphere is deduced and shown to have a cyclic component
of period roughly twice the 11 year solar cycle period. Long term variations in the global
average surface temperature as a function of time since 1956 are found to have a similar
cyclic component. The cyclic variations are also observed in the solar irradiance and in
the mean daily sun spot number. The cyclic variation in the cosmic ray rate is observed
to be delayed by 2-4 years relative to the temperature, the solar irradiance and daily sun
spot variations suggesting that the origin of the correlation is more likely to be direct solar
activity than cosmic rays. Assuming that the correlation is caused by such solar activity,
we deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth
which can be ascribed to this activity is .14% of the observed global warming.


http://onlinelibrary...008JD011639/pdf

In particular, we examine how robust different published methodologies are at detecting and attributing solar-related climate change in the presence of intrinsic climate variability and multiple forcings. We demonstrate that naive application of linear analytical methods such as regression gives nonrobust results. We also demonstrate that the methodologies used by Scafetta and West (2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2007, 2008) are not robust to these same factors and that their error bars are significantly larger than reported. Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980.


http://rspa.royalsoc.../2094/1387.full

A multivariate fit to the variation in global mean surface air temperature anomaly over the past half century is presented. The fit procedure allows for the effect of response time on the waveform, amplitude and lag of each radiative forcing input, and each is allowed to have its own time constant. It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is −1.3% and the 2σ confidence level sets the uncertainty range of −0.7 to −1.9%. The result is the same if one quantifies the solar variation using galactic cosmic ray fluxes (for which the analysis can be extended back to 1953) or the most accurate total solar irradiance data composite. The rise in the global mean air surface temperatures is predominantly associated with a linear increase that represents the combined effects of changes in anthropogenic well-mixed greenhouse gases and aerosols, although, in recent decades, there is also a considerable contribution by a relative lack of major volcanic eruptions. The best estimate is that the anthropogenic factors contribute 75% of the rise since 1987, with an uncertainty range (set by the 2σ confidence level using an AR(1) noise model) of 49–160%; thus, the uncertainty is large, but we can state that at least half of the temperature trend comes from the linear term and that this term could explain the entire rise.



tl;dr the effect of "solar variation" is grossly overstated by deniers of human influenced climate change


I can explain it to you.


apparently not

I can't understand it for you.


lol you can't even understand it for yourself

#28 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,585 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 04:49 AM

Posted Image

Sorry I couldn't get one drawn by hand.

#29 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,561 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 05:09 AM

GS..... Apparently you are comfortable with willful ignorance. Your case is terminal.

Del.... Great use of a logarithmic scale to visually skew your graph. You'd have done better with something hand drawn for a truthful representation if that was your actual aim

#30 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,561 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 05:19 AM

Here's another one... remember how we used to claim how we were destroying the ozone? What happened with that?

How about losing all of our breathable air due to deforestation of the Brazilian rainforest? It's pratically gone compared to what it was... we have WAY more people... yet we still have air. How did that happen?

Remember "part of this balanced breakfast" with eggs, bacon, buttered toast, cereal, and whole milk? We then said eggs, bacon, whole milk, and butter were bad... then we recanted... all within two decades. How did that happen?

Remember the scare of global cooling in the 70s? Eugenics? Early iterations of natural selection? Inability of man to fly? Breaking the sound barrier? Space travel? Bilious humours?

All of these within a couple of centuries, and all wrong.

Nevermind those of us that choose to look at the totality of evidence... carry on with the latest fashions of what qualifies as knowledge as you see fit. Regardless of your rationalizations, it doesn't change what is. You'll have to find a way to dealing with being wrong... you should be comfortable enough with it as you embrace it so much.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com