Redstate

And it don't involve chlorophyll

So how credible is debatable but it is certainly authoritative.

For the temperature graph will you know that one. There are people that argue that the warm period, the little ice age, and the roman warm period didn't happen. (Oddly enough you usually find them on the IPCC). My take is that trying to measure a global temperature before the emergence of a global culture or the invention of accurate measuring equipment is at best a stretch.

And "adjusting" data from different methods to make them match up at temporal connection points AND then not reporting that this was done.... well, more stretching....

The free exchange of ideas inevitably yields both heat and light.

is that believers like you, when confronted with interpretations of data you don't like, simply say 'more research is needed'.
Yet your leaders won't do more research. They say the science is settled, like evolution or QM.
As to irradiance, who picked 50 years?
The graph goes back many hundreds of years.
Another part of the social movement of AGW is that when data is presented that does conflict with the apocalypse, there is always an editorial added to say that it is not really in conflict with the apocalypse.
IOW, part of a mass hysterical movement is strict adherence to the orthodoxy, making sure the data fits the conclusion.

They claim a minimal "direct" effect of Solar Irradience compared to the total effect of all greenhouse gases. But we know that the "direct" effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is minimal, compared to the total effect. It is precisely the "indirect effects" of CO2 that are supposed to make it a dominating "polutant" for the AGW myth. And the "indirect effects" of SI are dismissed because they are not "understood" the way they claim to know those for CO2.

Give us a climate model that predicts the climate data from before the Little Ice Age (and forget your d**n hockey stick) and matches the variations half as well as the SI chart does and I'll listen.

And, for the BMO, they are claiming that the GT variations from 1958 to 2008 (warming, then cooling, then warming, now cooling) are better predicted by the constant increase in CO2 over the period than by variability in SI? That is just plain horse--eh, feathers!

2.4 watts/m^2

This graph shows a variance of 3 watts/m^2

Do you think that insignificant ?
Or unimportant ?

Joliphant used data from NOAA and the Met Office to contradict the conclusions reached by those organizations. So I challenge joliphant, or any of the other skeptics, to do the following three things:

1. Find contact information for appropriate people at NOAA and the Met Office.
2. E-mail (or phone, etc.) the URL of this thread so that they can read it in its entirety and see the graphics.
3. Ask them to comment on joliphant's conclusions.

After all, if you're going to use their data in a way that contradicts their findings, isn't it fair to ask what they think of that?

Also, joliphant, you never answered my question. Did you look around the NOAA or Met Office sites to see why they reached a different set of conclusions than you did?

Ask them this If Anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the warming

1 why did we have the warm period and the little ice age
2 why did we come out of them
3 why does temperature correlate much better with the sun than co2

Your complete lack of a response is glaring.

When confronted with an error or contradiction:

Try to change the subject with additional data, but don't cite where the data came from or how it was used.

Don't answer simple questions to explain whether you did any background reading before posting the data. Ask a question of your own to try to shift the burden.

Don't rise to the challenge of defending your assertion. Just make another one.

You made a de facto claim that NOAA and the Met Office misinterpreted their data and made erroneous claims about the role of the sun in global warming. Your claim, your burden. The challenge stands.

Try to change the subject with additional data, but don't cite where the data came from or how it was used.

2.4 Watts/M^2 from the IPCC. You do know what the IPCC is? I did mention them.

Don't answer simple questions to explain whether you did any background reading before posting the data. Ask a question of your own to try to shift the burden.

You see I am kind of dense here, You have to explain this to me. Since when does it matter what people say about the numbers ?

You made a de facto claim that NOAA and the Met Office misinterpreted their data and made erroneous claims about the role of the sun in global warming. Your claim, your burden. The challenge stands.

Yes I did and the data uphold. You have to bear in mind NOAA has predicted 10 of our last 2 above average hurricane seasons and the Hadley Met office predicted global warming would stop in 1998 ( they made the prediction in 2007)

Your challenge is meaningless.

The fact you don't understand why is sad.

Re: the IPCC, I said "cite," as in citation, as in name the specific source, not "name the organization."

You have to explain this to me. Since when does it matter what people say about the numbers ?

Apparently I do have to explain it. In a recent thread you were unable to consistently read the units of measurement correctly, or determine when additional data had been added to generate a map display. Given your record of inaccuracy, and your tendency to use information from organizations that disagree with you, it's necessary to check what you claim: what is the provenance of the data, how was it gathered, when, etc.

You have to bear in mind NOAA has predicted 10 of our last 2 above average hurricane seasons and the Hadley Met office predicted global warming would stop in 1998 ( they made the prediction in 2007)

So you trust them to correctly gather accurate data, but not to interpret it? This is another case where hearing their side of the disagreement is important. If you think the data are accurate enough to say AGW hasn't happened, or is over, you have to place at least some minimal confidence in the source(-s) of the data. And if you have that level of confidence, it's difficult to say that the organizations are benighted. There is nothing wrong with agreeing in part and disagreeing in part, but if you want to make anything approaching a thorough contribution, you need to explain why.

The challenge was largely rhetorical. I would have been very surprised if you had actually taken it up. Red State and similar blogs provide a very safe environment for people to look for reinforcement of their beliefs, kind of like fans of the same football team hanging out together.

And dodge the facts.

:::Rubs Hands Together {Smiles}:::

But just for starters I am still waiting for you to say why I or anyone else should ignore a 3 watt/M^2 change in temperature forcing when the IPCC states the total forcing from CO2 is 2.4 Watts ?

Now to deal with your petty stuff

First when I said the IPCC ? Just what would you think I meant ?

Second

So you trust them to correctly gather accurate data, but not to interpret it?

Well why Yes Of course. It's much easier to gather data than it is to understand it. You betray your ignorance once again by asking the question.

BTW in the above you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the difference between AGW, GW and Climate change in general. That would tend to disqualify you from the debate.

this might fix it or this

Regarding the IPCC, "cite" refers to providing a citation, which includes things such as author names, publications, page numbers or a URL. It refers to a specific article, database, Web site, etc.

But just for starters I am still waiting for you to say why I or anyone else should ignore a 3 watt/M^2 change in temperature forcing when the IPCC states the total forcing from CO2 is 2.4 Watts ?

Given your record of inaccuracy I won't take the numbers at face value (see above re: citations). Sorry, but I've followed too many links and found information that didn't match your claims. You seem to have time to do this endlessly, but I don't.

Asserting Canada, Africa and Eurasia should be represented by ocean data.

That's not an accurate characterization of what I said. In response to the somewhat obvious observation that those places are not oceans, I pointed out that they have thousands of miles of coastline. Even with very small radii around a weather station, the land and sea measurements are bound to overlap.

Or your not understanding that you can't manufacture more data by using the same data to represent a larger area ( or let alone why it's wrong)

Again, not really accurate. I was responding to your accusation that NASA had cherrypicked data to exaggerate warming. I pointed out that the default settings showed both less warming and less cooling. That's an accurate observation of the way the map is colored.

BTW in the above you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the difference between AGW, GW and Climate change in general. That would tend to disqualify you from the debate.

Again, not true. Go back through past threads and see how I defined AGW as a theory.

If I went at all ad hominem I was just repaying you in a small denomination of your own coin.

But Point by point once again.

1.You distrust my numbers but have none of your own ?
Whats more you question my legitimacy for not providing a cite when you don't even provide numbers ?

Just at a guess on how to find the number type IPCC CO2 Radiative forcing into google and the first hundred hits will give you Hits

PERHAPS THE REASON YOU DON'T REPORT YOUR NUMBERS ARE THAT THEY ARE LOWER THAN MINE. AS I CHOSE A VALUE AT THE TOP OF THE RANGE. HMMMM ??? MAKES YOUR CASE LOOK BAD ????

You see choosing the worst case for my argument makes it stronger. If you need to jigger things to rely on the best case it weakens your argument.

2. Really ??

That's not an accurate characterization of what I said. In response to the somewhat obvious observation that those places are not oceans, I pointed out that they have thousands of miles of coastline. Even with very small radii around a weather station, the land and sea measurements are bound to overlap.

A. No they will not.
B. With a 156 mi radius they don't.
C. You were shown that and chose to ignore it because either you did not like it or it didn't fit your preconceptions.
D. What you are saying is that you can project coastal data into the interior of a continent. This is like saying you can measure Chicago's temperature by a thermometer in NYC

You do understand this ??? A 1200 Km radius is like using a thermometer in Central Park to measure the weather in Ohio. This is what you did when you set the smoothing radius to 1200 KM.

Feel embarrassed yet ??

3.

BTW in the above you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the difference between AGW, GW and Climate change in general. That would tend to disqualify you from the debate.

The hilarious thing here is weather or not AGW is theory or fact is not the difference between AGW, GW and Climate. Change.

You have just demonstrated you don't even properly understand the meaning of the words

Kindly document where I said that the 1200 km radius was the best one. As I said earlier, I have no strong position about the radii. None is likely to be a magic number.

Your accusation of cherrypicking at NASA didn't hold up, and now you're just obfuscating with numbers. This from someone who said that the difference between miles and kilometers is "immaterial." Ask the guys who accidentally crashed a Mars lander because they got the units wrong. It's very material.

The hilarious thing here is weather[sic] or not AGW is theory or fact is not the difference between AGW, GW and Climate. [sic] Change.

I define AGW as the theory that human activity* is causing warming above and beyond what was already occurring due to non-human causes. If I didn't use that exact language earlier, I used language pretty close to it. My definition of the theory is based on exactly the difference you claim I don't understand. So whether or not the theory is valid doesn't matter in terms of my ability to distinguish the two. Also, more than once, I have pointed out that natural variability in the climate, i.e, climate change, will prevent a uniformly upward movement in temperatures.

*Theoretically relevant activity in the aggregate. Let's not start with the "every little thing" canard again.

LOL

You have a choice of two items. You say one is the wrong one. Then shout show me were I said mine was the best show me.

Pathetic.

You and The Register used the incomplete data. I used the complete data.

Or are you saying that this is a value neutral statement not meant to bias ??

The fact was this did not create any more data on the continents. It did not add any to the gray areas. What you did was expand the representation of the existing data so it showed a false picture of complete coverage.

Go.back.to.the.dialog.box. You can generate the map with partial data (only land or only ocean), or with complete data (both land and ocean). The Register used partial data (land only), and I used the complete data (land and ocean). That is a completely separate issue from the radius settings. And by the way, no, calling partial data incomplete and full data complete isn't freighted with much value. It's just a pair of accurate observations.

When I set the two different radius values I was simply demonstrating how they affected the coloring on the map. The smaller radius showed less cooling AND less warming, casting serious doubt on your accusation of cherrypicking.

This is the kind of stuff I'm referring to when I refer to your inaccuracy.

I'd say the Hinz Rule is in order, J.

Just incognito.

Do you think the over 3 watt / square meter variation of the sun is significant compared to the 2.4 watt variation due CO2 etc ?

Odds are you won't, It really doesn't seem to be about understanding for you

IF you can document where the data came from, how they were used, etc., I MIGHT play ball. But sorry, joliphant, I'm not going to chase down any more numbers or graphs out of context. I know how it will go. You'll point to (or I'll find) information that has been used, by highly qualified people, to reach a conclusion that conflicts with yours. When I point out the contradiction and ask you to explain it before I respond more fully, you will either try to change the subject or accuse me of ducking the question.

This is EXACTLY about understanding for me. But frankly, I am getting sick of this nonsense. When I go to sites like http://realclimate.org/ or http://www.newscientist.com/home.ns, I get reasoned discussion of pros and cons, background, context, and a legitimate understanding of words such as theory and falsification. Here? Poorly proofread, poorly reasoned skepticism often based on evidence that doesn't even match the skeptic's conclusion. I actually came to RS looking for climate skepticism, to get a good look at the counterarguments that were emerging. Frankly, I'm aghast at the low quality of most of the skeptical posts. My classmates in freshman and sophomore Comp courses could do better than most of these posts.

The question was not what other people think but what do you think.

Your response: You have neither the context or desire to form your own opinion

To your great surprise, I know how to read! I know how to differentiate between scams and science. I know how to look at historical data and the dueling banjos effect of global warming, global cooling, global warming, global cooling that shows AGW "scientists" are spitting in the proverbial wind. A person doesn't have to have a degree in nuclear physics to know the difference between $%it and applebutter. You can go on with your elitist position that only a highly degreed person can possibly understand the nuances of environmental theory, go on and make a jackass out of yourself.
Tim Schieferecke

Do you have a PHD? In what?

Did you sleep at a holiday inn last night?

Just curious...

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,

Well I knew you needed them to build, practice medicine and give legal advice.

I didn't know they were required to ask a question or make an observation.

I suppose I should feel flattered you ask. (That by the way is my polite way of not answering.)

I kinda figured you wouldn't answer.

I doubt you tell us what you do for a living.

Again, just curious.

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,

You need to ask why they are so important to you.

P.S. The reason I don't turn this into an argument from a position of academic authority is I win you lose. You'd have to dig Pliny up if we are going to set minimum qualifications to join the debate.

Your position seems to be that with a few neato graphs, you have solved this question. Nobel will be calling shortly.

But I bet there is someone, somewhere with more Academic Authority than you that believes that GW may possibly exist and so that call won't be coming.

But again, I'm not surprised you won't answer my questions. Not a big deal, I think I know the answer anyway.

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,

Let me make a few observations though.

1. When you project onto people that disagree with you, it says more about you than them.

2. You haven't read enough of what I have written on this if you think, I feel I have solved this question.

He's been awfully quiet on these threads as of late.

I had some Email from him before he took a trip to NYC. Havent heard from him since.

...but LR nonetheless makes a good point. You throw around a lot of graphs and numbers out of context, and use them to call BS on the work of very highly qualified people. I've looked at sites like http://realclimate.org/, and I'm impressed by their thoroughness, and by their willingness to talk extensively about context and background. It's not a slam dunk that they're right, but their thoroughness outdoes anything I've seen from anyone on RS (and yes, that includes me). I have yet to see an AGW skeptic, here or elsewhere, land a good clean blow.

Several times most recently and notably on the recent temperature declines and the prior plateau in temperature.

I Have no idea what you call landing a clean blow, but I doubt exists.

They revised their position based on evidence. That is problematic for the various accusations of conspiracy and cult membership that get floated here on RS, including by you.

Or if they were Connecticut Book Custodians they might call it landing a clean blow.

To issue a "challenge", but I will make a kindly suggestion, invitation even, that you visit:

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Review_Article.html

You will find ample reference to peer-reviewed articles from "credentialed skeptics" that illustrate the lack of correlation between increasing CO2 and climate change. You don't need an advanced degree to understand that, while correlation does not mean causation, a lack of correlation pretty well falsifies causation.

Incidently, while I am quite skeptical of the absolute accuracy of the GT historical numbers bandied about, if you can use the numbers from those who claim that they prove AGW and illustrate that they do no such thing, you have made a substantive contribution to the debate. And, for goodness sake, stop looking for authority figures and counting "votes" on each side. Look at the substance of the argument!

_____________________________

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle

If something is true, it is true. In this current debate there are now far more credentialed scientists who are skeptical at least about the more alarmist claims of AGW, but you see little mention of them in the media.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

We don't know what is true. It's still up for debate but the overwhelming number of credential scientists are on the other side of Joliphant.

That's not to say there aren't credentialed skeptics. There are and they may be right.

At this point, we just don't know.

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,

And if we just don't know what should we do before we re-engineer our economy, spend upwards of 45 trillion dollars and impose government controls on much of our lives ?

I refuse to buy into Gore's wagered gambit. I would have liked a little of that so-called global warming when I was freezing my tail off 6 - 7 hrs/ 6 days a week this past winter. Consensus science is science fiction. Prove it's real or bug off wackos.
Tim Schieferecke

Didn't seem to get the coverage any random hot day gets

Tim Schieferecke

_____________________________

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle

"It's still up for debate but the overwhelming number of credential scientists are on the other side of Joliphant."

And then there's the "credentialed scientists" v. the "credentialed skeptics" slur.

So how long has it been since you quit beating your dog?

Your agenda is showing.

“To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.”

-Margaret Thatcher

Are either of those statements, which appear to have come from executive summaries, actually borne out in the science of thier respenctive reports, or is it politically necessitated verbiage required to get the report vetted by the higher-ups (who will never actually read the science)?

This whole matter has become so politicized that any statement from "experts" is worth precisely the value of the paper it's printed on. This is exactly what "science" is supposed to prevent, and fortunately for us, real scientists have developed techniques to filter out the BS. I'm not a climate scientist, but I know more about science and math than 99% of the population, and in my corner of reality a higher statistical correlation in the raw data trumps any fence-sitting in the analysis or butt-covering in the executive summary. I haven't run the numbers myself, but just looking at these charts I can guesstimate that we're talking about a correlation at least in the high 80's versus one that at best is in the low 60's.

I'm not a big fan of the "New new math", but when I went to school, 80% was bigger than 60%. So unless your experts at the BMC, NOAA, or IPCC can come up with *verifiable* greenhouse data that exceeds that level of correlation, or can somehow discredit either the solar irradiance data or the temperature data, it really is time for them to go home and find a new source of grant money. Or take up crochetting, which is the proper career of scientists who've willfully participated in a global scientific fraud of vast proportions (ala Nuclear Winter).
______________________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)

while AGW congregants' solutions smack of the neutering of the American economy. Eventually there will be a regression to the mean including a dampening of environmental hysteria, as well as a realization that there is no free lunch where energy consumption and the environment is concerned. This will mean people understand that a central planning takeover will spell disaster for those not profiting from carbon credits, etc. I'm all for sensible conservation. It's part of personal responsibility, a profoundly conservative ideal.

The free exchange of ideas inevitably yields both heat and light.

The post that talked about YOU was over here...

__________
When I was your age....heck, I was NEVER your age

Nice slap Da...er...LV.

"Freedom will only survive on the weight of every effort expended to preserve it"

In following the debate on the Warner-Lieberman Confiscatory Destruction of American Freedom and Liberty Act, I was awestruck by the absolute gullability of "conservatives" falling for the imposition of a Socialist scheme in answer to a non-issue. John Warner, I swear he must have had a sever brain bleed to have thought that MMGW is such a serious problem that he was prepared to destroy the personal liberty of his "grandchildren" (whom he trotted out as his reason for sponsoring this piece of trash).

Then there is Mel Martinez. His family risked everything to send him to the U.S. to escape the tyranny that sized his homeland and he too, votes for this blatant attack on personal liberty and the soverignty of the Unites States, also for the "children". I swear, we need to strip out the cancer that hasa engulfed the Republican party and start over or abandon it as a lost cause and quickly formulate a successor.

These are truly dangerous times. Fire Mel Martinez, fortunately Warner is leaving. We need to elimiate Snow, Collins and yes McCain from the leadership of this party if we are to save it. Vote McCain to save the judges and lets rebuild over the next four.

We have a core of solid true conservative to start from. Lets support:

Eric Cantor
Jeff Flake
Richard Shelby
John Cornyn
Saxby Chamblis
James Inhofe
Mitch McConnel (if we can break his earmark habit - excellent parliamentarian)
Jim Demint

and the few others that uphold freedom as sacrosanct, dump the others.

Except this time it goes back to the 1600's not the 1880's

And the sources are a bit more robust. Of course there is a term for continually improving the data that support an argument and strengthening it's underpinnings. Oh yes it's called the scientific method.

I really wish you had of chosen to attack the weaknesses in the argument. The discussion would have at least been contentious to say the least. But good to see you nonetheless.

very well... here is the weakness, more data going back before 1880 on AGW whatever the date, is like adding more data from the past showing solar influence on atmospheric radiation levels before 1945...think paradigm shift...which is why the solar correlation goes to pot for the past 40 years...as we've discussed here ad naseum.

Because people stopped thinking they were.

Well objective reality seems to be only for some.

_____________________________

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

This goes back to last summer, but I think we need to remain vigilant!

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/08/22/norwegian-moos...

The free exchange of ideas inevitably yields both heat and light.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

in the persons of Bill and Hillary. We all know there will be a sequel.

The free exchange of ideas inevitably yields both heat and light.