So, what did happen to all that warmth?

[tcmtech]

Nobody has been able to successfully refute the data and analysis we've provided.

Is your short term memory that bad?
You have shown yourself as being quite incapable of reading or understanding everyone else's links and conclusions and other related information you would clearly see about everyone HAS questioned AND refuted your information! That has been largely this whole debate for some 360 posts now. Your information is very one sided and very incomplete.

Too many people CANT seem to find your presentations valid or fully believable and HAVE continually questioned your information and efforts.

Just ask them.
I have questioned your overall presentation so thats 1 person who questions you.
If this whole thread was just me, you, and kchriste the total now would be a solid 1/3 in question of your work.

Any one else care to comment on the whole presentation everyones work so far?

Possibly another peer review is in order to validate everyones work an how everyone has personally seen it as it has been presented.

IF you think you have done so well on your presentations you should have no problems getting one and passing it, this time.

I will take one if you will!

 

[HarveyH42]

I don't think your opinion of what kchristy and I have done in this debate is worth the electrons it took to send it.

We''ve doe nothing more than support the current and best science.
We've linked and referenced many hight quality reports and presentations.
Nobody has been able to successfully refute the data and analysis we've provided.
Really, you're arguments are so impoverished, all you have left is to cry about the defence we've made.

There are a lot more people who stand to gain from promoting AGW, than those who question it. Who has the greater resources in this battle, who stands to gain financially? You both seem to get your information from heavily biased sources, considering the links you provide. I try to avoid sources that bend heavily one side or the other, which is near impossible.

Giving up on NASA for now, if any monthly or annual temperature readings are on their site, for the other planets, it's not to be found easily. Apparently 5 other planets are experiencing warming, but not considering the sites as credible. But 6 out 9 planets, would seem to indicate something larger going on. Anyway Cap and Tax, has passed the House, and it's sure to move through the Senate, soon as they finish up Obama-care. Probably won't take quite as long, since they need the carbon money to fund the health care of the homeless and unemployed, which could be considerable if this cold 'blip' doesn't clear up soon. Least my dog loves this stuff. Only about another 6 degree drop, and we could get some snow tonight!

 

[kchriste]

Who has the greater resources in this battle, who stands to gain financially?

Exxon et al, Ford, GM, et al, etc.

You both seem to get your information from heavily biased sources, considering the links you provide.

Agreed. The sites I linked to are heavily biased towards the science of studying GW.

Giving up on NASA for now, if any monthly or annual temperature readings are on their site, for the other planets, it's not to be found easily.

Doubt you'll find anything. There are no long term direct surface temperature measurements available for planets other than the Earth. There is however satellite data showing solar output. The variations in total solar irradiance remained below the threshold of detectability until satellites. Solar output varied approximately 0.1% over the last three sunspot cycles.

While are in the midst of an average summer's heatwave both the US and England are going thru their worst winters so in reality shouldn't 'Global Warming' be re-named 'Global Averaging' ??????

Yes, that's why it was renamed "climate change" because that is what is most likely going to happen. ie: Some places will get cooler while others will get hotter, but on average the entire Earth will be slightly hotter.

 

[BrownOut]

Is your short term memory that bad?
You have shown yourself as being quite incapable of reading or understanding everyone else's links and conclusions and other related information you would clearly see about everyone HAS questioned AND refuted your information! That has been largely this whole debate for some 360 posts now. Your information is very one sided and very incomplete.

Too many people CANT seem to find your presentations valid or fully believable and HAVE continually questioned your information and efforts.

Just ask them.
I have questioned your overall presentation so thats 1 person who questions you.
If this whole thread was just me, you, and kchriste the total now would be a solid 1/3 in question of your work.

Any one else care to comment on the whole presentation everyones work so far?

You have proven yourself quite incapable of understand and comprehending basic English. You state that you've questioned my overall presentations, and so that makes one. But I said nothing about anyone questioning me, I said nobody has successfully refuted the data the analysis that I've provided. Questioning is NOT refuting. Since you're so English challenged, you're hardly in any position to make any statement about what I can understand links and conclusions. After all, how is it that anyone who doesn't know basic terms can be qualified to lecture anyone else on their ability to understand? My analysis and presentations have been beyond refuting. The only people who have been carping about my lack of references are those who have already admitted they don't have the time to go over the thread to find the links and references I've already provided ( not including you, but you've already disqualified yourself as having the basic understanding to make such a judgment anyway ) Well, sorry for those who are out of time, it's not up to be to go back and link everything all over again because you're too lazy to read the thread. After all, my time is important too.

Possibly another peer review is in order to validate everyones work an how everyone has personally seen it as it has been presented.

IF you think you have done so well on your presentations you should have no problems getting one and passing it, this time.

I will take one if you will!

Review all you want. You couldn't find anything wrong with my analysis before, aside from a typo you pointed out that I corrected. I'd call that a passing peer review.

 

[BrownOut]

There are a lot more people who stand to gain from promoting AGW, than those who question it. Who has the greater resources in this battle, who stands to gain financially? You both seem to get your information from heavily biased sources, considering the links you provide. I try to avoid sources that bend heavily one side or the other, which is near impossible.

That's not true. The oil companies have billions at stake, and they spend much more than any other organization to try to contradict the science. Look at the salaries of the radio jockies who try to contradict GW, they are all in the millions!

Giving up on NASA for now, if any monthly or annual temperature readings are on their site, for the other planets, it's not to be found easily. Apparently 5 other planets are experiencing warming, but not considering the sites as credible. But 6 out 9 planets, would seem to indicate something larger going on.

6 out of 9 planets doing what? If the sites are not credible, then that would make 0 out of 9.

 

[BrownOut]

Quote by kchristeYes, that's why it was renamed "climate change" because that is what is most likely going to happen. ie: Some places will get cooler while others will get hotter, but on average the entire Earth will be slightly hotter.

I have to disagree. I neither think we've been going through "average" heat waves nor the worst Winter. Heat waves in the last few summers have not been average at all. 2009 was one of the hottest summers on record, for the US and the world. Read what the **broken link removed** has to say about it:

The world’s ocean surface temperature was the warmest for any August on record, and the warmest on record averaged for any June-August (Northern Hemisphere summer/Southern Hemisphere winter) season according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

And this:

NCDC scientists also reported that the combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for August was second warmest on record, behind 1998.



This artic blast has been pretty severe, but it is due to end in a couple days, in the US, and we are likely to see warmer temperatures to follow, just as we did after the first cold snap. Soon, Alabama will be getting those weird winter tornados just as we have in the last 2 winters.

Agreed. The sites I linked to are heavily biased towards the science of studying GW.

They won't be happy until you link crackpot blogs, conspiracy theorists and junk science denialist sites.

 

[Mikebits]

I have to disagree. I neither think we've been going through "average" heat waves nor the worst Winter. Heat waves in the last few summers have not been average at all. 2008 was one of the hottest summers on record, for the US and the world. This artic blast has been pretty severe, but it is due to end in a couple days, in the US, and we are likely to see warmer temperatures to follow, just as we did after the first cold snap. Soon, Alabama will be getting those weird winter tornados just as we have in the last 2 winters.

I have to side with Climate change as opposed to global warming.

According to the National Academy of Sciences;
however, “the phrase ‘climate change’ is growing
in preferred use to ‘global warming’ because it
helps convey that there are [other] changes in
addition to rising temperatures.”

https://www.electro-tech-online.com/custompdfs/2010/01/Climate_Basics.pdf

Basic Information | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

 

[kchriste]

I have to disagree. I neither think we've been going through "average" heat waves nor the worst Winter.

I think you missed my point about the average global temperature increasing. Mikebits quote from the National Academy of Sciences pretty much sums it up for me.
EDIT: Ah, you mean that average winter temps are warmer?

 

[BrownOut]

I think you missed my point about the average global temperature increasing. Mikebits quote from the National Academy of Sciences pretty much sums it up for me.
EDIT: Ah, you mean that average winter temps are warmer?

I did miss your point. I was thinking about the "global averaging" comment you were responding to.

 

[tcmtech]

I said nobody has successfully refuted the data the analysis that I've provided.

Definition of refute.

Main Entry: re·fute
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈfyüt\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): re·fut·ed; re·fut·ing
Etymology: Latin refutare to check, suppress, refute
Date: 1545
1 : to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
2 : to deny the truth or accuracy of <refuted the allegations>
— re·fut·able \-ˈfyü-tə-bəl\ adjective
— re·fut·ably \-blē\ adverb
— re·fut·er noun

SO by refuting you mean that no one has provided an counter argument YOU accepted as vailid then?

Well then technicaly your right. You have not been refuted simply because you have continualy refused to take any and all counter suportive data, information, theories or anything else otherwise as being believeable by your own personal standards for any possible reason!
So that in itself does make you irrefutable. But unfortunatly it also makes you far less creditable in what you do say as well.

Refute my claim that you presently have or recently have had some form of brain or metal damage in some recent time or that you are not suffering from some from of dementia or other forms of mental disorder.
You seem to think you have all the facts but I suspect you wont or cant refute me on this one!

 

[BrownOut]

Nobody has proven that the data I've linked and references is wrong or shown it to be false. There have been questions, yes, and questioning is good. But no proff to the falsity of my data has been put forth.

If you want to pay for a mental evaluation, I'll gladly submit to it. I'll need to be compensated for my time, however. I should warn you; my rates are quite high.

 

[Sceadwian]

The only information I've seen kchristie or brownout post is alarmist rants based on shallow point data that isn't even as deep as a kiddie pool and they laugh and pick on anyone that says anything different as if that somehow proves the pure idiocy occurring here.

I've already stated on multiple occasions that I am not denying global warming is occurring or that C02 levels are rising, or that man is contributing to the C02 increase. There is however absolutely no concrete science to prove all the meandering conspiratorial bully babble you guys are pulling every time you post a new thread. There is no way either of you have even half a clue how real science occurs as you both are interested only in agreeing with each other in order to appear correct rather than actually critically looking at the information that's being provide. You're worse sheep than the people that refute global warming completely.

You're no and always have been making pointless conversation to pat yourself on the back, we won't really have a clue what's truly going on for at least another few hundred years as we collect more data. We can at be interpret the data we're getting critical and aim for least possible additional damage in the process, which is occurring.
The carbon market and tax crap that's going around now is NOTHING more than way for politicians to line their pockets and won't actually do anything at all to reduce C02 output, no matter what anyone thinks, it's going to continue to increase for a bit at least. Probably a lifetime or two.



Brownout, ther is nothing in the data to be proven wrong, the conclusions drawn by the data are completely wrong though. Data does not have an opinion, and all of the data can not possible agree with what you're saying, they're just numbers, you see increasing graphs on a couple graphs and you think that somehow gives you the right to state something as fact. You obviously have absolutely no respect for the actual science occuring or any reasonable understanding of statistical methodology. You just want to prove your points, and sit there with a smug ego again just patting yourself on the back so you can feel good about being right when you're just babbling more senseless noise into an already troubled field.

 

[BrownOut]

Still awaiting for a scientific rebut to the data, and not meaningless, general statements about the poster's intents or interests. I'll be waiting forever, it seems, because those who argue have nothing other than pointless rants.

 

[bryan1]

OK guys since my last post this thread has descended into the gutter. One more post where a member of this forum is harassed and this thread will disappear into the ether. This debate where it is a valid topic keeps straying very close to member abuse so come on guys please keep it clean.

 

[kchriste]

Refute my claim that you presently have or recently have had some form of brain or metal damage in some recent time or that you are not suffering from some from of dementia or other forms of mental disorder.
You seem to think you have all the facts but I suspect you wont or cant refute me on this one!

Preserved for posterity and protected from editing.

 

[Sceadwian]

Brownout, are you intentional misreading the posts? There is no refuting the data, data is data. What's being refuted is the explanations and conclusions derived from that data which aren't as cut and dry as data. You can SAY anything you want, data itself does not prove anything.

You can show all the data you want, you can't prove your assumption of that data without proving the statistical methods are valid, which and I'll say this again even though I'm getting tired of it... Can't be demonstrated for hundreds of years! There is absolutely not scientific ground to stand on here.

Just as an examples, earlier kcrhiste named three data sources.
A long term study for C02 levels, a long term study of global temperature and a short term study on various point measured c02 sources.

Those data sets alone prove absolutely nothing of any kind whatsoever. They're simply observations which we have as yet absolutely NO idea what the system dynamics are that are being influenced or cause/effects specifically.

I said this earlier and I'll repeat it again you can likley asume that a part of the increasing c02 levels are due to mans burning of fossil fuels, however we aren't able to analyze the earths global temperature with enough precision to link the two together concretly without know every other influence on the whole system.


Thanks for taking notice of the thread bryan, I seriously think a little moderation is in order =) I will attempt to keep it as clean as possible in respect to name calling but I am heavily upset at the extremely illogical conclusions that kchriste and brownout have made, and they are most definitely attacking anyone that is saying anything that even slightly contradicts anything they say, even though I have on multiple occasions stated I wasn't trying to prove global warming or any of their data wrong, mearly their conclusions as to the cause and effect of these issues and trying to bring some possible semblance of logic back into the picture as there currently is nothing but wild opinions running around here =) If you have any problems with my posts from the moment you gave that warning, please contact me in PM immediately even if you don't want to make an issue of it in the forum as I do respect the opinion of other users here as long as their not trying to run over basic science in the process.

 

[kchriste]

There is however absolutely no concrete science to prove all the meandering conspiratorial bully babble you guys are pulling every time you post a new thread

vs

The carbon market and tax crap that's going around now is NOTHING more than way for politicians to line their pockets and won't actually do anything at all to reduce C02 output, no matter what anyone thinks, it's going to continue to increase for a bit at least. Probably a lifetime or two.

Hmmmm. Which will you choose?

 

[BrownOut]

I've said over and over, nobody has refuted the data, analysis, conclusion, presentations, etc etc etc. Many questions have been asked about all of these, but nobody has successfully disproven any of it. The analysis, based on the data, has shown conclusively the link between GW and man made CO2. These correlate better than any other alternative explanations that's been offered.

You're not even debating the science anymore, you're debating the debate. I stand by all of the evidence, analysis and conclusions proviede by kchriste and myself on the topic.

 

[Sceadwian]

Brownout, I've already stated, someone showing two graphs with related curves on them does not prove it's correlated data, anything said to explain the linking between those two curves which doesn't include statistical analysys and linking to OTHER data sets is nothing more than an opinion. You can't disprove something that isn't a proof in the first place. Simply saying it and drawing assumptions based on data is not science it has to be proven. And it can't be for hundreds of years, and the one thing I can absolutely guarantee you is that EVERY single last scientific theory about the global climate will be completly obsolete by the time someone who is born this year's great grand kids reach adulthood.

I'll stand by that statement well past my grave, and you're more than welcome to try to prove me wrong after you're dead as well => because that's how long it will take to prove anyone has a clue what they're talking about now, which is the sad sick part of it and why so many people jump in on climate change topic, there is no way to prove it in the lifetime of anyone that takes part in the conversation.

So in effect (I stated this way back) there isn't actually a discussion possible here.

 

[BrownOut]

Perhaps two graphs don't make a case. But we've not discussed only two graphs. We've discussed numerous data sets and a wide range of data, including directly measured data and archeological data. In all of these data sets that have been honestly collected, analyzed and correlated, they have pointed to the irrefutable conclusion that the globe is warming and that man made CO2 has a profound impact, causing the rise in temperature. There are all kinds of correlating data, and the analysis has been performed by well established scientific methods, and is beyond reproach as well.

But I don't ever expect for you and some others to remit to the overwhelming evidence. When we put up a graph, you complain there is no correlating data. When we put up correlating data, you complain still. But the totality of the data/evidence cannot be denied.