So, what did happen to all that warmth?

How can you see visual manipulation in the data, when the graphs that the debunkers are using are the same graphs the "scientists" are producing!?!? LOL

tcmtech said:

Keeping the global warming/climate change believers going in circles is almost too easy! I cant believe I actually got someone to argue trees VS corn and then say something like this

Click to expand...

Yes it is painfully obvious that, since you don't have a valid argument, you resort to obfuscation.

tcmtech said:

Yes but scientifically what gets referenced to something as it direct action has to be separated from the indirect as well. Other wise you get the typical nonsensical numbers that the climatologists keep spewing out. By example being you are online do you pay for just the electricity that your computer uses or do you pay for all the electricity that every server, router, and in between connection in the entire world wide internet is using while your on line?

Click to expand...

The cost of the electricity for the servers is built into the price you pay and every advertisement you must watch,etc.

Also when you put fuel in your pickup did you pay for every single gallon of fuel and energy that was used to locate, develop, pump, process, and deliver that fuel to the service station you get it from or do you just pay for what your putting in your pickup and chain saw?

Click to expand...

Same with the gas. The customer pays everything in the end. You don't think Shell and Exxon are losing money do you?

Well it is winter so that may work just fine! If its a big lake and the ice is solid I may get pretty far too!

Click to expand...

Not here you won't. You'd better bring your regulator and tanks!

ke5frf said:

Mike, have you not actually read the e-mails? There are 1000s of them, posted in their entirety and in context. I've read only about 200 of them myself. But that was enough to see what was going on.

Click to expand...

Actually I have not, so far all I have seen are the email snippets. Care to share a link? BTW, Moberg's last name is not et al.

Brownout, it is NOT sound scientific methods if there is a data divergence of unknown origin, you can't simply average all the sample together and forget that spike, it's still there it will always be there and it should and can never be ignored or averaged out, it is in fact what science searches for. It's answering questions it didn't know it was asking, it's about learning. Science is concretly and irrevocably linked to PROVING a supposition with data and time and multiple attempts from multiple independent and unbiased sources. What is going on in your case is sound discovery, it is not in fact hard science, to say anything else simply shows your complete lack of knowing how the scientific process works.

Critical self exploration is required, if you don't before you even state your first supposition not only completely agree with the possibility that you could be wrong and eagerly attack your own findings vigorously what you're doing is NOT science. Saying anything else again digs your own grave in the scientific community. Climate science is NOT hard science, you'll find few physicists even remotely involved because they're too busy off in a lab somewhere analyzing data and devising new experiments and throwing out years of research which proved they were on the wrong track and they're trying to find out what to do next.

Brownout, one more time. You have shown nothing, you've stated an opinion and are holding your chin up high and huffing your chest and pointing to shallow information that isn't panning out. You have nothing more to say and nothing to pat your own back about for another 100 years or so. I personally know you could be wrong, I do also say you could be right, if you can't do the same and then not say anything for a hundred years then we'll all just keep arguing back and forth for the next hundred years while the world does something else completely different from anything either of us thinks could possibly happen. This is how things work.

ke5frf said:

If you made a graph of mean body fat percentage of the human population, you would see a nice "hockey stick" rise in the 20th century. If records had been kept for the past 2000 years, you'd probably see a pretty "flat" mean up until the past 100 years or so. But fast food and a trend in cultural laziness has created a sharp increase in average human body weight. If you lined up such a hockey stick graph of mean body fat vs. average global temperatures, you might think a causal relationship is occuring (flatulance/methane perhaps?)

Click to expand...

You know you could almost make that argument. The emergence of the car culture with it's fast food drive thrus, fat people, and CO2 emissions probably DO correlate well!

ke5frf said:

Exactly Scaedwian. Nail on the Head. It is just like Electromagnetic science in electronics. It wouldn't be usable if it "sometimes worked". Could you imagine trying to build an oscillator if you couldn't get two capacitors of the same reactance value to charge and discharge at the same rate? Or if two coils of the exact same demensions and applied voltages always radiated different shape and strength magnetic fields? Electronics would be a useless science if it wasn't valid 100% predictably.

Click to expand...

I agree. I can't build anything that works without my 0% tolerance resistors, inductors and capacitors!

**broken link removed**

FOI2009.zip

Lots of sites hosting the file. Download at your own risk. There are sites that are hosting them in html as well. Google FOI2009.zip
Also, I was quoting the website when I used the term "et al". I know this isn't a last name Goofy Et al is Latin for "and others" (or something roughly similar) and is used to denote research conducted by a group under the namesake of the lead author/s. (Silly Wabbit.)

ke5frf said:

I said they don't "tend" to grow to be 1000 years old. And the article supports this. The article implies that 1000 years is just about the MAXIMUM found in the tropics, whereas in temperate to cold climates trees can live to be several times older. The article says that "some" trees have been carbon dated to be around 1000 years old. We aren't talking about entire forests of millenia old trees here. We're talking rare samples. Sparse population of uncommonly old trees do not a proxy make. This article doesn't invalidate the common wisdom that the tropics are not generally hospitable for trees to reach such maturity at any kind of statistical frequency. Hardwoods in the tropic are typically exotic compared to the Oaks, for instance, of the higher latitudes. And as the article points out, these trees are not used for proxies because there aren't definable "growing seasons" in areas where the climate isn't variable. Tree rings are a feature somewhat unique to temperate regions.

Click to expand...

S, basically in the tropics, these ring-less trees have being enjoying ideal growing conditions for 1,000 years. Doesn't seem to do much to support our destructive lifestyles, unless they are dying out for some reason, other than furniture or being cleared for farm land. Maybe something to check on in a few hundred years. Kind of brings up an interesting thought... If these tropical hardwoods have no rings, because there isn't any season change, could some of the old trees temperate regions have thick rings, because they had a real warm, year-round grow season, or two. Maybe some trees are even older than the ring count. Maybe they had a bad year, and no new growth... Maybe I should shut up, this kind of puts tree rings back into the climate models...

kchriste said:

I agree. I can't build anything that works without my 0% tolerance resistors, inductors and capacitors!

Click to expand...

Tolerance and divergence are a might bit different animals there binkie.

ke5frf said:

How can you see visual manipulation in the data, when the graphs that the debunkers are using are the same graphs the "scientists" are producing!?!? LOL

Click to expand...

Because they're not.

HarveyH42 said:

S, basically in the tropics, these ring-less trees have being enjoying ideal growing conditions for 1,000 years. Doesn't seem to do much to support our destructive lifestyles, unless they are dying out for some reason, other than furniture or being cleared for farm land. Maybe something to check on in a few hundred years. Kind of brings up an interesting thought... If these tropical hardwoods have no rings, because there isn't any season change, could some of the old trees temperate regions have thick rings, because they had a real warm, year-round grow season, or two. Maybe some trees are even older than the ring count. Maybe they had a bad year, and no new growth... Maybe I should shut up, this kind of puts tree rings back into the climate models...

Click to expand...

No, you aren't. The difference, as admittedly my unscientific experience from just reading understands it, between each year's growth width and density is in the micro-scale of variation. It isn't like you have a 2 inch growth ring to compare to a cm wide growth ring to say "aha, that year was X warmer than the other". It is very subtle and nuanced and other factors play into it like mositure, dryness, and the time of year the moisture and dryness occur. In other words, pure hocus pocus for anything other than age dating.

OK, I'm a skeptic, and I just made an observation about a graph that you linked to. I didn't create that graph, a climate scientist did. Almost all of the skeptic websites use these same graphs and data to debunk, because it IS these graphs and data that the debunkers are debunking!

The science of Global Warming, or rather the multitude of scientific disciplines which make it up, are not so unique in the annals of scientific work. It is sound, and as I've pointed out, uses sound scientific methods and solid scientific knowledge upon which it builds its foundations. Many other science disciplines underwent refinements as they matured. Yes, even such a hard science as physic used incrementally gathered data to build the modern body of its work, and indeed continues to do so. Other sciences, as pointed out such as astronomy and geology have similar characteristics, and yet they are not maligned the way that climate science has been. I may not have shown all there is to know about the science, but it's out there, and I've offered a sampling, which is much more than those who criticize the science has done.

The skeptics too often use trumped up graphs and data. Even the article that started this whole discussion ignored very important facts, and thus was guilty of dishonesty by omission.

ke5frf said:

Tolerance and divergence are a might bit different animals there

Click to expand...

They could have similar effects, which was my point.

binkie.

Click to expand...

Sorry I don't play football and I'm not religious either.

Brownout I eagerly await your reply... 100 years from now =)

The problem I keep running into while reading to either confirm or debunk anyones posts is that there seems to be more and more OTHER variables at hand in this problem.

The climate is changing and I agree with that. But then again it always was so that a rather invalid argument. I keep aging and my body seems to keep changing as well and not always in the areas I would like for reasons I would presently favor either!

The issue I keep finding on the more unbiased scientific level is that water vapor carries the highest share of green house effects. As sited here **broken link removed** and here Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers and here Water vapor and global warming and here Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And with a general search you can find dozens of other references that point to water vapor being the majority player in heat atmospheric retention. Some rate it higher than others but still all put it several times greater than all other green house gasses combined values.

The overall less biased green house effect seems to be that water vapor carries a round 60 -80% of the over all net effects. CO2 is second at around 10 - 30% And of course our personal contribution to the total volume of CO2 is about 3% which means we could be responsible for .33 - 1% of the total green house effects.

Since the scientists cant apparently come to an exact conclusion as to how much each gas contributes by itself but rather still have wide ranging values I dont see that they are able to pinpoint our emissions with any greater accuracy. If they all agreed that water vapor was exactly 68.2% and CO2 was exactly 28.7% and all other gases made up the remaining 3.1% Then yes I would take your estimated .33 -1% far more seriously but not when the present numbers cant get to within the 10's of percents numbers for each!

My math still says the plausible estimated variations in each major green house gasses contributions are still many times greater than what our personal numbers may influence things at. Unfortunately for me a .33 -1% value on a system that has other estimated values that can vary by 20% of the total 100% just doesn't hold much strength.

What you're leaving out is that "natural" sources of CO2 are less than what is absorbed by the earth, oceans, etc. Man made CO2 is partially absorbed and partially resides in the atmosphere. And so, although man made CO2 emissions are a small fraction of the total CO2 annully, the rise in atmospheric CO2 is 100% man made. So the increase in temperature by greenhouse gas is then 100% man made, although as a fraction of the total greenhouse forcing, it's 10 - 30%. See it here and **broken link removed**. The second one is jut a blog, but what's important is the DOE numbers. I argue that they support my idea that the accumulation of CO2 is all man made.


The graph is reporduced below:

the rise in atmospheric CO2 is 100% man made.

Brownout, please substantiate that claim. There is so little logic in every word you said in your last post it's no wonder there's confusion.

Sceadwian, did you look at the chart Brownout attached? It backs up what he posted. Whether a GW denier will accept any data from the US dept of energy is another matter.