Man Based Global Warming....

None of that is happening. Even if you read the links you provided.

 

Too late. You're entirely irrelevant now. You failed to answer any questions and are completely full of hot air (ha!) This is not surprising, given the impossibility to defend something with as many holes in it as your idea of AGW. Thanks anyway!

 

New climate theory (DWT) proves more accurate than AGW~

William M. Briggs, Statistician & Consultant

...It is rational to believe that “continued research will provide new and better ways to model climate” and that model physics will improve. But I do not agree with the suggestion that we use to make decisions a partial, error-prone theory because it is all we have. We do not just have the AGW theory—there are rivals.

There are many competing theories for why the climate takes the temperature values it does. AGW is one of these. So is one we can call, the “Dude, whatever” theory (DWT), which predicts the climate will be just what it was last year with a little added plus/minus. AGW predicts that next year will be warmer than this year, and that the year after that will be warmer than next year, and so on, all with a little plus/minus.

Any climate observation is consistent with both our theories (and many others). DWT has the advantage of being very simple. A sophisticated theory (like AGW) should be able to beat it silly in any kind of forecasting contest.

Well, AGW predictions do not beat DWT predictions; and in fact DWT beats AGW. So what’s the better theory?

DWT also beats the Nothing Ever Changes (NEC) theory, which says (among other things) that the mean global temp will always be a constant (with no plus/minus). NEC theory is the simplest we can think of, DWT is next in complexity, and AGW is the most complex. There are other theories in between the complexity of DWT and AGW that, I think, would beat DWT in making predictions.

Therefore, I claim that it is DWT that should be used in decision making until such a point that the AGW models can spank it....

I love it!

 

I'll repeat it for you, since you are too lazy to quote me:

You don't seem to realize that more than the tree ring data has been perverted - think urban heat island 'corrections' and who controlled tha data. But it's nice to know that some are now admitting it.

Interesting that Mann's most recent paper - released just in time to influence Copenhagen (and NOT anticipating the recent inconvenient revelations) is shown to once again invert data. That means when some data have shown a decline, he simply turned it upside down. Wow, look at that dramatic increase! What a crock.
This is a fact.

Look it up. I'm tired of providing links that are ignored. Hint - Tiljander.

And since you are too lazy to look it up:

AOL Search

That Mann used the Tiljander proxies upside down is a statistcally provable fact. Perhaps you aren't too lazy, just terrified that you might be wrong?

Let me help you out a little further:

http://regator.com/p/221691447/another_correction_from_upside_down_mann/

Mann is forced to admit the fact. He prefers to call it an 'error'.

 

Good on ya, Mate!

Funny you should mention motivation for doctoring the data. In fact, it may be possible down the track for some of these moon-bats to have to answer for their follies:

Climategate e-mails sweep America, may scuttle Barack Obama’s Cap and Trade laws – Telegraph Blogs

 

From 1 year ago

 

A little naughty fun.

 

Hey Radioprius, if climate change can be caused by the love of puppies and this is really Chemistry 101 as you say, how can you draw such a parallel? You know CO2 helps keep heat in the atmosphere, so why do you argue it doesn't?

 

Your lack of a high school education is really showing. You've devolved into just trying to bait people into name calling. Sorry I'm not a neanderthal. I really wish you AGWers had something to contribute these days. I don't blame you all for being so quiet after all the scams that have been uncovered the past few days. You must be really digging your heads deep in the sand.

 

Which part of my post shows a lack of education?
I wonder if you can tell me which part of my post is baiting anyone into name calling?

 

Actually, properly designed LEDs should not flicker. If they do, they have a poorly designed AC-DC converter in them which most likely converts AC-DC by simply hacking off half of the AC voltage.

 

From what I understand, the ballasts that can withstand the heat of an enclosed bulb (or a bulb designed to be installed upside down, such as a can-light) are not good at producing instant light-output.

Don't recall why - At the very least, I'd be willing to pay more for a good PAR30 indoor flood that was instant on (or near instant on) instead of having to wait a couple minutes for light output to be acceptable.

So far, I've found some dimmable PAR20 made by Philips which are pretty good, but haven't seen them in a PAR30.

 

Why do you always reply without actually answering the question? And then proceed to call them names? Seriously, I've read about 10 pages of AGW posts now and every single one of your posts is the same. Let's try to contribute something new or worthwhile or take it to FHOP, eh?

 

He's not even right on the "Chemistry 101" part. It's actually 2nd semester college physics, chemical engineering heat and material balances (as in where the CO2 comes from and the enthalpy change of atmosphere and oceans), and heat transfer (a 2nd year engineering course that includes radiative heat transfer) since the problem is actually due to the wavelengths/wave functions and the specifics of the chemical bonds in question. Some of this might be covered in second semester physical chemistry...it's been a long time so I don't recall specifically and much of P. Chem was regurgitation of basic physics/engineering so it was an easy class. It is mid-level college science course wise. The concepts aren't too difficult, but the physics of what wave lengths are absorbed and re-emitted is challenging.

I can answer the question you posed though: he says CO2 doesn't affect climate because that would interfere with his belief system (e.g. Man cannot alter the planet's climate.) This belief is probably the most common thread of the denialist argument. It might even be a necessary belief to adhere to denialism. There is no need for any data or science to measure something one assumes cannot exist.

On the other hand those of us relying on the science can state that it is not apparent how much overall short term and long term impact CO2 will have. Instead we watch as folks attempt to build more robust models of a very complex system, trying to determine what is caused by CO2 and what by other factors (known and unknown.)

I very much hope the denialists turn out to be partially correct: it is best if the impact of CO2 is smaller than currently seen and predicted.

 

I hope that they are 100% correct. At a minimum with oil and gas reserves rapidly dwindling, we will have enough of an issue dealing with shortages of those resources - but we may have a bit more time before peak oil / gas becomes an issue. At the same time, dealing with market shortages of fossil fuels (primarily oil at this point) will likely be a lot more unpredictable than a planned reduction in fossil fuel consumption.

Unfortunately, science does not make it likely that they are.

 

Come on Shawn, I haven't completed high school, shouldn't you be putting me in my box now not supporting me. Goodness me, what is the world coming to?

I think it is a covenant of the denialist's religion to deny all that will cost them a dollar, I really think that is the issue if you read between the lines.

 

It is not avarice that drive denialists since doing what should be done will actually save money and create an industry that will generate jobs. Incidentally, it would also improve our national security. I think the source of denialism is simply fear of change and fear that maybe we all have to be thoughtful about our impact and should modify our behavior.

Also wanted to point out as have others that no substantive point has been made by the denialists. All denialists posts are either derision of facts and/or their interpretation and posting a link to a blog post that more often than not does not match the point they are trying to make.

Not once have a denialist in this thread have argued based on published science. The reason — confirmation bias. They are fishing for places that they know confirms their unsubstantiated beliefs.

Again I challenge you, post an argument that is just not derisive but involves data or actual documented material. Not a second-hand interpretation from a blog post.

 

It would be great to have an outside source study the data from CRU however the CRU no longer has the original data

Climate change data dumped - Times Online

All they have anymore is their "adjusted" data.

The scientific method is out the window here folks.

AGW supporters here please continue to babble on and quote charts its laughable at best we you continue to quote the very data from people who are now under investigation for falsifying it

 

This is silly. Not that there is a problem with it but we don't need the CRU data to prove global warming. Any modern instrumental record, dozens of historical proxies (trees being only one), and general climate change observations will do (glaciers, species change, etc).

Sort of like evolution. We don't need fossils to show it happened but is nice to have them. More important would be contradictory data of which there is none.

 

Alric theres plenty of contradictory data out there some of which has been posted in this thread. You just continue to deny it

Just like the rest of the AGW supports.

These records you speak of and continue to quote. The ones provided by the CRU and IPCC have been shown to have been falsified and adjusted to show that AGW is happening when in fact it is not