hot enough for ya?

Topics without replies are pruned every 365 days. Not moderated.

Moderator: Dux


Topic author
dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by dead man walking »

Turdacious wrote: It seems like the Berkeley study is saying that this is a normal shift
no.

a skeptic who questioned whether the climate was changing at all now says the climate scientists have done a careful job and, yes, the climate is changing.

whether that change is "normal" or caused by humans was not addressed by the study.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

User avatar

PC Polar Circle Person
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2962
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:00 pm
Location: Deep under the Snow

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by PC Polar Circle Person »

Some perspective for the Save the Planet folks:

BTW, Turd, the possible climate change is just one of the countless problems we're causing ourselves by fuckin' up the environment.
Image

User avatar

PC Polar Circle Person
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2962
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:00 pm
Location: Deep under the Snow

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by PC Polar Circle Person »

WTF is up with the youtube embedding? http://youtu.be/p5Miv4NHsDo
Image

User avatar

Herv100
Sgt. Major
Posts: 3783
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:12 am

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Herv100 »

LOL at all the Global Cooling Deniers around these days
Image

User avatar

Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 21247
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Turdacious »

dead man walking wrote:
Turdacious wrote: It seems like the Berkeley study is saying that this is a normal shift
no.

a skeptic who questioned whether the climate was changing at all now says the climate scientists have done a careful job and, yes, the climate is changing.

whether that change is "normal" or caused by humans was not addressed by the study.
LOL at the idea that a Berkeley scientist was a skeptic (climate change is one of the best ways to get research funding, and he knows it). You're reading into his work, I'm not.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule


Topic author
dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by dead man walking »

don't be silly. and don't treat serious people, like prof muller, like cardboard characters.

read the link i posted:

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/glo ... ot-a-hoax/

read the article by the scientist himself, in the wsj. that's where he wrote:
When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections
.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 27348.html

i'm done holding you hand on this. show pls. show some intellectual honesty rather than throwing out additional rhetorical distractions.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

User avatar

Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 21247
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Turdacious »

Muller isn't exactly a new face in this debate, and as far as I know he's pretty well respected. Apparently you don't understand rhetoric enough to know he could be using a straw man in the paragraph you quoted.

From 2004:
In the scientific and political debate over global warming, the latest wrong piece may be the hockey stick, the famous plot (shown below), published by University of Massachusetts geoscientist Michael Mann and colleagues. This plot purports to show that we are now experiencing the warmest climate in a millennium, and that the earth, after remaining cool for centuries during the medieval era, suddenly began to heat up about 100 years ago--just at the time that the burning of coal and oil led to an increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.

I talked about this at length in my December 2003 column. Unfortunately, discussion of this plot has been so polluted by political and activist frenzy that it is hard to dig into it to reach the science. My earlier column was largely a plea to let science proceed unmolested. Unfortunately, the very importance of the issue has made careful science difficult to pursue.
We now know less about the history of climate, and its natural fluctuations over century-scale time frames, than we thought we knew.

If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions. Suppose, for example, that future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct global cooling trend. (It could happen.) If we mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously--that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small--then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey. If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling.

A phony hockey stick is more dangerous than a broken one--if we know it is broken. It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the value of caution.
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/

I don't mind you being a liberal, please try not to be an empty headed one. Muller's work has been out there for a while.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

User avatar

DrDonkeyLove
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 8034
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:04 am
Location: Deep in a well

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by DrDonkeyLove »

I worry more about the economic meltdown than the glacial meltdown.
Image
Mao wrote:Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party


TerryB
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 9697
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:17 pm

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by TerryB »

dead man walking wrote:
Turdacious wrote: It seems like the Berkeley study is saying that this is a normal shift
no.

a skeptic who questioned whether the climate was changing at all now says the climate scientists have done a careful job and, yes, the climate is changing.
Of course thats not really the point though at all now is it. Everyone believes the earth's temperature shifts over time.
"Know that! & Know it deep you fucking loser!"

Image


Topic author
dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by dead man walking »

Turdacious wrote:Muller isn't exactly a new face in this debate, and as far as I know he's pretty well respected.
both points seem true. also this view of him, from the lemonick piece, to which i provided a link.
Richard Muller is a man climate scientists love to hate. Among other things, the Berkeley physicist has questioned the professional integrity of people like Penn State's Michael Mann, one of the creators of the so-called "Hockey Stick" graph showing that temperatures shot up dramatically and unprecedentedly in the 20th century. Mann has been cleared of such accusations many times over; so have the main actors in the so-called "Climategate" affair, another of Muller's targets.
he's not a knee-jerk berkeley liberal, as you suggested earlier, anymore than john yoo is.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

User avatar

Pinky
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7100
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 9:09 pm

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Pinky »

[quote="DrDonkeyLove"]I worry more about the economic meltdown than the glacial meltdown.
Image

This suggests a difference in smoothing more than anything.
"The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all."

User avatar

DrDonkeyLove
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 8034
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:04 am
Location: Deep in a well

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by DrDonkeyLove »

Pinky wrote:
DrDonkeyLove wrote:I worry more about the economic meltdown than the glacial meltdown.
Image

This suggests a difference in smoothing more than anything.
I infer from this graph that temperature has been quite consistent for the last 4500 years with a few peaks and valleys that could have nothing to do with man made climate change. Also, today's temperature is well within the average range over that time period. Am I misinterpreting?
Mao wrote:Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party


Topic author
dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by dead man walking »

Severe seasonal melting has reduced ice floes, floating chunk of ice, in the Arctic Ocean to the thinnest on record, according to researchers.

Scientists from the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Germany said the proportion of old, thick sea ice in the central arctic has declined significantly. The ice cover now "largely consists of thin, 1-year-old floes," they said. . . .

Researchers said that at sites where the sea ice was mainly composed of old, thicker ice floes in the past decades, there is now primarily one-year-old ice. . .

"The ice has not recovered. This summer it appears to have melted to exactly the same degree as in 2007. Yes, it is exactly as thin as in the record year," said sea ice physicist Stefan Hendricks.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

User avatar

Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 21247
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Turdacious »

dead man walking wrote:
Turdacious wrote:Muller isn't exactly a new face in this debate, and as far as I know he's pretty well respected.
both points seem true. also this view of him, from the lemonick piece, to which i provided a link.
Richard Muller is a man climate scientists love to hate. Among other things, the Berkeley physicist has questioned the professional integrity of people like Penn State's Michael Mann, one of the creators of the so-called "Hockey Stick" graph showing that temperatures shot up dramatically and unprecedentedly in the 20th century. Mann has been cleared of such accusations many times over; so have the main actors in the so-called "Climategate" affair, another of Muller's targets.
EDIT (now that I have a minute): No shit. The link I posted said that.
he's not a knee-jerk berkeley liberal, as you suggested earlier, anymore than john yoo is.
No shit. I just posted a link that said that

Berkeley liberal has nothing to do with it. There are two sides of Berkeley. The N Berkeley side is dominated by the sciences, the S Berkeley side is dominated by the rest. Berkeley's science and policy reputations are excellent, if I remember right, most of the entire UC science establishment (hard sciences, applied sciences, and practical policy) is funneled through Berkeley. If you want federal research funding in the broad area-- alternative energy and climate change are the best ways to get it. If you dig into the application for the research dollars, I'll bet you'll find that it was justified that way.
Last edited by Turdacious on Tue Oct 25, 2011 4:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule


Topic author
dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by dead man walking »

so you are acknowledging that muller was a known skeptic, is not a knee-jerk liberal, and that his recent study does undermine the position of climate change doubters.

in other words, you have come full circle. excellent.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

User avatar

Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 21247
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Turdacious »

dead man walking wrote:so you are acknowledging that muller was a known skeptic, is not a knee-jerk liberal, and that his recent study does undermine the position of climate change doubters.

in other words, you have come full circle. excellent.
I'm acknowledging you have trouble with reading comprehension.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule


Gene
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5385
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Voct. США

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Gene »

Ice Nigger wrote:Gene, I don't know nothing about all this shit, but wouldn't it logically make sense that burning the carbon that has accumulated in the earth during a shitload of years (too many zeros to comprehend) all up in just a few years, and thus releasing it back to the atmosphere would cause some kind of effect?
A reasonable question.... I do not know.

The science, Stig, is sloppy... great example.

The Climate Change people rely upon measurements from Mauna Loa Observatory, which is parked on a volcano. What do volcanoes emit? Carbon dioxide.

How do these geniuses discriminate between "atmospheric carbon dioxide" and "volcanic carbon dioxide"?

"Vented gas from the nearby Mauna Loa summit is sometimes transported downslope at night and detected by the CO2 analyzers [Pales and Keeling, 1965; Miller and Chin, 1978] and aerosol monitors [Bodhaine et al. 1980] at MLO. At a remote location such as MLO, the background air is normally well mixed and exhibits a steady hour-to-hour CO2 concentration. Plumes from the summit caldera, a nearby source of CO2, are poorly mixed with the background air upon reaching MLO and can easily be identified by their highly variable CO2 concentration. Previous studies have been concerned with identifying and eliminating this volcanic contamination from the climatological record [e.g. Keeling et al., 1976; Thoning et al., 1989]. The present study is the first to use the suite of MLO trace-gas data sets to monitor the long-term outgassing behavior of Mauna Loa volcano. "

http://web.archive.org/web/199801141522 ... olcCO2.htm

So, porous rock doesn't emit Carbon Dioxide at a consistent rate? How the fuck would you know, and how do you isolate a slowly increasing rise in vented volcanic carbon dioxide from the atmospheric readings?

This kind of "science" is like the guy who searches for his glasses under a street light instead of in the alley where he lost them - because he can "see on the street".

Where are their controls? Where are the venting estimators like sulfur dioxide concentration (which may rise and fall alongside of carbon dioxide as the two are outgassed together)? What of other common volcanic gases? Are these measured in tandem to provide an estimator of outgassing, rather than a "well, the weather is consistent here". That would convince me a lot more than this "Dog ate my homework" crap.

How about atmospheric samples taken from balloons upwind once in a while to calibrate the Mauna Loa samples? Do these exist? If not, why not?

I did basic and applied R&D. If I did work this sloppy I'd have been pushed to the side. I still do it and am trusted because I never trust what I'm seeing.
Ice Nigger wrote:Why does it so often seem to me that people make up their minds about all kind of things either on a political or religious basis? Very rarely do I get the impression that people actually would do some independent thinking and stuff.
I haven't made up my mind about the "science". I'd like to see better quality science before I agree or disagree with the conclusions. What I am sure about is that the science ain't settled.



What I love about the "article" cited by DMW is the tired old rhetorical bullshit....

If the "Deniers" are wrong about "climate change" then they're "wrong about the cause too". It's kindergarten reasoning, and beneath us as a people.
This space for let

User avatar

Pinky
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7100
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 9:09 pm

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Pinky »

DrDonkeyLove wrote:
Pinky wrote:
DrDonkeyLove wrote:I worry more about the economic meltdown than the glacial meltdown.
Image

This suggests a difference in smoothing more than anything.
I infer from this graph that temperature has been quite consistent for the last 4500 years with a few peaks and valleys that could have nothing to do with man made climate change. Also, today's temperature is well within the average range over that time period. Am I misinterpreting?
You're reading too much into it. It looks like it's been warmer than average since the industrial revolution. For all you can tell from that graph, we could be trending toward another Old-Testament-era warm spell. The volatility shown since industrialization, including the decrease shown now, is likely meaningless.
"The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all."


Topic author
dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by dead man walking »

Winter droughts have become increasingly common in the Mediterranean region, particularly over the past 20 years, and a new study finds that global warming has driven at least half of the change.

Drought conditions in this politically explosive region are expected to grow more severe over the course of the century unless countries begin to significantly reduce their emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, many researchers say.

Winter storms historically have delivered most of the annual rain and snowfall to the already arid Mediterranean region. Yet precipitation measurements from the region and modeling studies point to a relatively rapid shift in the winter rain and snowfall trends that began in the 1970s, according to the study.

That change could signal that the region "has moved into a new climate regime," says Martin Hoerling, a scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth Systems Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., and the study's lead author.

The shift is not the result of temperature trends in the region itself, Dr. Hoerling notes. Instead, he and his colleagues trace drier Mediterranean winters to changes in long-range atmospheric circulation patterns. These changes, the study suggests, are triggered by rising ocean temperatures in the tropical Indian Ocean, a trend scientists have previously attributed to climate change.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2011/1 ... sappearing
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.


Yes, I'm drunk
Top
Posts: 2194
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 8:57 am

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Yes, I'm drunk »

Turdacious wrote:
dead man walking wrote:
Turdacious wrote: EDIT (now that I have a minute): No shit. The link I posted said that.
No shit. I just posted a link that said that.
LOL, group hug!

I just posted a link that said that! Turd wants a group hug!!

Faggot.


Gene
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5385
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Voct. США

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Gene »

Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.

Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.

Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious ‘Climategate’ scandal two years ago.
As well as trends in world temperatures, they looked at the extent to which temperature readings can be distorted by urban ‘heat islands’ and the influence of long-term temperature cycles in the oceans. The papers were submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research.

But although Prof Curry is the second named author of all four papers, Prof Muller failed to consult her before deciding to put them on the internet earlier this month, when the peer review process had barely started, and to issue a detailed press release at the same time.

He also briefed selected journalists individually. ‘It is not how I would have played it,’ Prof Curry said. ‘I was informed only when I got a group email. I think they have made errors and I distance myself from what they did.

‘It would have been smart to consult me.’ She said it was unfortunate that although the Journal of Geophysical Research had allowed Prof Muller to issue the papers, the reviewers were, under the journal’s policy, forbidden from public comment.

Prof McKittrick added: ‘The fact is that many of the people who are in a position to provide informed criticism of this work are currently bound by confidentiality agreements.

‘For the Berkeley team to have chosen this particular moment to launch a major international publicity blitz is a highly unethical sabotage of the peer review process.’

In Prof Curry’s view, two of the papers were not ready to be published, in part because they did not properly address the arguments of climate sceptics.

As for the graph disseminated to the media, she said: ‘This is “hide the decline” stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline.

‘To say this is the end of scepticism is misleading, as is the statement that warming hasn’t paused. It is also misleading to say, as he has, that the issue of heat islands has been settled.’
Prof Muller said she was ‘out of the loop’. He added: ‘I wasn’t even sent the press release before it was issued.’

Prof Muller defended his behaviour yesterday, saying that all he was doing was ‘returning to traditional peer review’, issuing draft papers to give the whole ‘climate community’ a chance to comment.

As for the press release, he claimed he was ‘not seeking publicity’, adding: ‘This is simply a way of getting the media to report this more accurately.’

He said his decision to publish was completely unrelated to the forthcoming United Nations climate conference.

This, he said, was ‘irrelevant’, insisting that nothing could have been further from his mind than trying to influence it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... eague.html
Last edited by Gene on Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This space for let


Gene
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5385
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Voct. США

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Gene »

Dr. Curry's comments on the Mail Article....
I told Rose that I was puzzled my Muller’s statements, particularly about “end of skepticism” and also “We see no evidence of global warming slowing down.”
She also denied some of the points of the article...
did not say that “the affair had to be compared to the notorious Climategate scandal two years ago,” this is indirectly attributed to me. When asked specifically about the graph that apparently uses a 10 year running mean and ends in 2006, we discussed “hide the decline,” but I honestly can’t recall if Rose or I said it first. I agree that the way the data is presented in the graph “hides the decline.” There is NO comparison of this situation to Climategate. Muller et al. have been very transparent in their methods and in making their data publicly available, which is highly commendable.
My most important statement IMO is this: ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’ My main point was that this is a very good data set, the best we currently have available for land surface temperatures. To me, this should have been the big story: a new comprehensive data set, put together by a team of physicists and statisticians with private funds. Showing preliminary results is of course fine, but overselling them at this point was a mistake IMO.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail- ... #more-5526
This space for let


Gene
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5385
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Voct. США

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Gene »

Dr. Curry's comments on the BEST work itself....
The issue for which Muller has taken the most heat is his public statements regarding his analysis as being the end to climate change skepticism. To Muller’s credit, he has taken the initiative to engage with and listen to skeptics, albeit on the narrow topic of the surface land temperature data record. Relative to the broader issue of attribution, which are at the heart of skeptical concern, details of the surface temperature record don’t play a terribly large role in most people’s skepticism about climate change.

My bottom line assessment is:

a press release on this was warranted
I applaud making the submitted papers publicly accessible at this time
the spin on the press release and Muller’s subsequent statements have introduced unnecessary controversy into the BEST data and papers

I will meet with Muller and Rohde next week in Santa Fe (more on this meeting in a few days). I will see if they will agree to an interview for Climate Etc. This thread is an opportunity for you to craft questions for them to respond to.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/26/best-pr/


Here is the real deal IMO. Let's see where this goes and not jump to conclusions or do stupid public policy.
This space for let

User avatar

FRKCTL
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5495
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 4:13 am

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by FRKCTL »

Still, Muller said it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels.
“Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world,” he said. Still, he contends that threat is not as proven as the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html
Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... al+warming

The argument it seems is whether human activity is causal, correlative or circumstantial. Hard for me to conclude it isn't at least correlative.

User avatar

Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 21247
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Turdacious »

limey twink wrote:
Turdacious wrote:
dead man walking wrote:
Turdacious wrote: EDIT (now that I have a minute): No shit. The link I posted said that.
No shit. I just posted a link that said that.
*twinklefingers!*
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

Post Reply