So, what did happen to all that warmth?

[kchriste]

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.

I provided plenty of graphs in this post from the climategate: hide the decline thread.
I also posted **broken link removed** with even more data for you to peruse. Lots of data from lots of different contributors. Hardly just two graphs. I originally did not repost the data here in this thread because repetition is a sign of insanity. Comparing ice core CO2/CH4 data to real time measured data helps us confirm the methodology and calibration of the ice core data. Of course it does not directly correlate the data.

 

[HarveyH42]

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!

Oil companies will do just fine, they aren't the ones burning it, not mention petroleum will still have many uses. Not all countries are going to do the cap and tax thing either. The oil companies will still make good money, the tax and crap will just come off in higher prices.

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

Earth was one of the 6 (oops!), I posted '5 other planets'. Probably why GW makes so much sense for you, don't seem to read too clearly.

I have refuted the GW conclusions, and it's pretty easy, since the base, raw data isn't available, only what has already gone through some 'adjustments', which also isn't disclosed. The 'models' are only referred to, but details and the programs are not available either, and only a few of them are ever mentioned. While tracking hurricanes, the weather service so a dozen or so different models that try to predict the storm's path. Basically show that the storm could go just about anywhere... I don't really have a problem with the data or readings, the climate changes all the time. We do burn a lot of crap, so there should be more crap in the air, no surprises. It's the conclusions and convictions, that CO2 is the root of all evil, and will destroy us all in a couple hundred years. That nothing good will come from a warmer climate. Completely destroying the economy, and crippling industry is a much better alternative to a few degrees increase in temperature. It's all conjecture, political, propaganda.

Reading the hardcore GW stuff all ways reminds of the few times I've been cornered by some of those door-to-door bible guys. Starts off, 'have you been saved', go into some of recent current events, a few passages of the bible showing where the 'end' is near. A bible passage, to dispel any disagreement. And usually finish up with, you don't have anything to lose, you gain a better life. Oh, and for a small donation...

 

[Sceadwian]

It doesn't matter how many graphs and datasets you have Brownout, you have to prove how they are connected, not that they look similar. You have determined data sets that seem to have similar responses without actually proving how they are connected. If you can't prove how then there is no proof.

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.

This is absolute 100% false, all that is being said is that and then pointing to the graphs of the data that show rises and falls.

Man made c02 DOES affect the environment to say otherwise is wrong. Saying that man made C02 is causing the rise in temperature is just as equally wrong as there is natural C02 to take into account as well as the rest of the systems that are influencing C02 changes in the first place which we do not currently understand. We are most positively absolutely completely statistically proof 100% positive known to be affecting the environment. Quantifying that affect and what effects it may have over the long term are completely unknown at this point. We simply put don't have enough data about natural c02 and the global systems that affect it to draw any conclusions.

Since we know we do have an effect an attempt to minimize it is absolutely in order. I however think that for just about all buisness using as little energy and resources as possible is better for buisness that buisness as usual will actually get better over time and that the increases which are more than likley to occur are simply because of our expanding population and hence overall influence. Nature will put that in check realllllll fast if it gets out of control without anyone doing anything =)

 

[BrownOut]

Oil companies will do just fine, they aren't the ones burning it, not mention petroleum will still have many uses. Not all countries are going to do the cap and tax thing either. The oil companies will still make good money, the tax and crap will just come off in higher prices.

Oil companies spend billions trying to contradict GW. They don't care about other uses, they only care about drilling and selling as much oil as possible and making as much money as possible. They'll say or do anything to protect their establisied markets.

Earth was one of the 6 (oops!), I posted '5 other planets'. Probably why GW makes so much sense for you, don't seem to read too clearly.

You don't write too clearly.

I have refuted the GW conclusions, and it's pretty easy, since the base, raw data isn't available, only what has already gone through some 'adjustments', which also isn't disclosed. The 'models' are only referred to, but details and the programs are not available either, and only a few of them are ever mentioned. While tracking hurricanes, the weather service so a dozen or so different models that try to predict the storm's path. Basically show that the storm could go just about anywhere... I don't really have a problem with the data or readings, the climate changes all the time. We do burn a lot of crap, so there should be more crap in the air, no surprises. It's the conclusions and convictions, that CO2 is the root of all evil, and will destroy us all in a couple hundred years. That nothing good will come from a warmer climate. Completely destroying the economy, and crippling industry is a much better alternative to a few degrees increase in temperature. It's all conjecture, political, propaganda.

All base raw data and methods have been made available. The work of the climate scientists has been laid open, reviewed, criticized, argued, and the result is the very best picture possible. Nothing has been hidden, faked, distorted or glazed-over. Making overly generalized comments which have no substance, corroboration, correlation or bases in anything factual or verifiable is not the same as disproving the science.

The weather service has done a great job of tracking and predicting hurricanes. I've watched this over the years and the track us very often very close to the highest probability tracks. I'm actually amazed how good the predictions have been, even when the path has been complicated. That's a great example of how good science can make good predictions.

Reading the hardcore GW stuff all ways reminds of the few times I've been cornered by some of those door-to-door bible guys. Starts off, 'have you been saved', go into some of recent current events, a few passages of the bible showing where the 'end' is near. A bible passage, to dispel any disagreement. And usually finish up with, you don't have anything to lose, you gain a better life. Oh, and for a small donation...

Reading hardcore denialist stuff remindes me of all the other anti-science probaganda I've read. Same distractions, same flawd logic, same distortions, made up or manipulated data and blantantly incorrect statements.

 

[tcmtech]

So far what I have been reading and seeing that relates to the unlikely possibility of climate change warming things up, on the global average, is that most equatorial and middle latitudes are going to see the least drastic temperature increases year round.
Its more likely that the upper latitudes and furthest polar regions will be what get higher temperatures during their winter seasons. Also these are the places with the lowest overall population base to begin with.

It still has rather weak and inconclusive evidence but I would give it a more plausible scenario than saying that the whole world in every single location is going to be 10 degrees warmer every single day!

Either way I personally I would love to see a 10 degree increase where I live all year round! Or a normal summer with a 20 degree increase all winter would be even better!
Right now I would be thrilled if it was a 30 degree increase that went from the middle of December through the middle of March!
That time of year sucks right now, -31 F at night and 0 F in the day is no fun.

 

[BrownOut]

It doesn't matter how many graphs and datasets you have Brownout, you have to prove how they are connected, not that they look similar. You have determined data sets that seem to have similar responses without actually proving how they are connected. If you can't prove how then there is no proof.

Been there. Done that.

This is absolute 100% false, all that is being said is that and then pointing to the graphs of the data that show rises and falls.

Man made c02 DOES affect the environment to say otherwise is wrong. Saying that man made C02 is causing the rise in temperature is just as equally wrong as there is natural C02 to take into account as well as the rest of the systems that are influencing C02 changes in the first place which we do not currently understand. We are most positively absolutely completely statistically proof 100% positive known to be affecting the environment. Quantifying that affect and what effects it may have over the long term are completely unknown at this point. We simply put don't have enough data about natural c02 and the global systems that affect it to draw any conclusions.

Natural CO2 and it's effects have already been taken into account.

 

[Sceadwian]

Oh really brownout? How could that be possible? We don't know how the natural carbon cycle on this planet even works yet! Any study that's written natural C02 and other possible environmental interactions which could be affecting c02 off can be tossed out as well as being nothing more than assumptions.

As I stated a few dozen or maybe even couple dozen threads back now the entire basis of the conclusions of hardcore 'man caused this' GW topics go have based all their conclusion on assumptions and derivatives of the actual data. It's those assumptions and derivatives of the data that I'm contesting, because THEY have no scientific basis, they're just wild guesses, and no provable.

 

[BrownOut]

We know alot about the natural CO2 cycle. I've found tons of information and more information is rolling in. No study of natural or man made CO2 should be thrown out.

The entire basis of hardcore man made CO2 is based on many different data sets and sound scientific research and investigations. Mostly, you're only repeating the same discredited arguments. You're not adding anything new.

 

[Sceadwian]

Just because you've found a lot of information does not mean we don't know it's cause an effect.
I will state again, because repetition seems to be the only thing that works.
DATA is NOT science.
You have discredited nothing. I don't have to discredit anything because the opinions that have been stated are NOT science, there is nothing to discredit.

We know alot about the natural CO2 cycle. I've found tons of information and more information is rolling in. No study of natural or man made CO2 should be thrown out.

Wrong, the data associated with those studies should not be thrown out, the theories themselves are not currently referenced to solid statistical data, just narrow shaky data sets that change depending on how you look at them, no correlation, no information is really there, just broad assumptions.

What I'm repeating over and over again is not discreditable. It's the simple fact that no GW study has a hardcore rock solid basic fundamental science reason for it's existence. There are too many words not enough equations and statistics based on the actual data. Assumption, theory, extrapolations, estimations I hear those words every time I see those kinds of studies. That is NOT science.

 

[Mikebits]

Oh really brownout? How could that be possible? We don't know how the natural carbon cycle on this planet even works yet!

Really? What led you to this conclusion?

The Carbon Cycle : Feature Articles

 

[BrownOut]

Just because you've found a lot of information does not mean we don't know it's cause an effect.

Never said it did. I said it was understood, and having information means understanding. The data associated with the studies are solid and should not be thrown out. It is the best available, and there is no contradicting data that can possibly show otherwise. It's hardcore science based on solid data and analysis. Repeating that it isn't doesn't prove a thing.

 

[Sceadwian]

Mike, for the simple reason that that is only what we have observed so far, this does not in any way shape or form change what is actually occurring. That entire article is basically fluff, and a few satellites and data sets doesn't make knowledge or complex interactions know or well understood. It's just more data to throw on the heap. Processing of that data should do one thing and one thing only and that's to aim further data collection.

 

[BrownOut]

Your argument doesn't make any logical sense. No matter how much data we have or show, you think you always know better, although you say nobody understands it. If nobody understands it, how are you such an expert that you can tell what we know isn't enough?

 

[Mikebits]

I will state again, because repetition seems to be the only thing that works.
DATA is NOT science.

Gadzooks, some of the things you say just make me want to shove a pencil into my eye and swirl it around.

Of course data is not science, but science is confirmed by data. A hypothesis is created, and with supporting experiments and data the hypothesis is either rejected or considered.

I don't recall anyone stating GW as being matter of factually, but reading the GW hypothesis and it's supporting data; how can one claim to refute the claim without data that offers an alternate explanation?

With the data presently available, and the possible future outcome, it would be negligent to dismiss the possibility and continue with business as usual.

 

[killivolt]

So if,


The Carbon Cycle : Feature Articles

This central focus of life will be an alternate solution and evolution to this planet. A new existence which brings about a new future for the planet.

Will we be dead bones un-earthed and released to the atmosphere at a later date?

 

[Sceadwian]

I said it was understood, and having information means understanding.

No it does not, it means better understanding, the systems are so complex if anyone says we understand it you can at the outset say they're lieing

The data associated with the studies are solid and should not be thrown out.

If the data is based off of estimates, forecasts, and averages it should. Only RAW data based on specific direct measurement is usable. Anything else is conjecture, and immediately unusable.

It is the best available, and there is no contradicting data that can possibly show otherwise.

This does not make the assumptions the data is based on correct.

It's hardcore science based on solid data and analysis. Repeating that it isn't doesn't prove a thing.

Right as soon as you prove the science based on pure data and statistical analysis will it become hardcore science, you repeating endlessly that all the articles you've posted links to are proof positive are correct does not make you actually correct.

 

[Sceadwian]

I don't recall anyone stating GW as being matter of factually, but reading the GW hypothesis and it's supporting data; how can one claim to refute the claim without data that offers an alternate explanation?

So far both brownout and khriste have stated GW as being fact on multiple occasions.

I'm not sure how many times I can say I'm not refuting the data, only the conclusions drawn from the data. The alternate explanation is simple personal assumption on what the data means.

With the data presently available, and the possible future outcome, it would be negligent to dismiss the possibility and continue with business as usual.

I've already stated the same conclusion myself at least twice. Business as usual right now however happens to be incredibly concentrated on using less energy and resources on a simple cost basis alone! China has the edge right now because labor costs so much less, but they're having energy issues as well with all the smog they're generating locally and what not, and Americans are still on their high horse thinking they have some entitlement to the same lifestyles they had a few years ago without adjusting to new global demands.

Trust me, the systems will adjust themselves perfectly fine without so much as thought to what we think.

 

[BrownOut]

No it does not, it means better understanding, the systems are so complex if anyone says we understand it you can at the outset say they're lieing

Information and understanding goes hand in hand, well for most of us anyway.

If the data is based off of estimates, forecasts, and averages it should. Only RAW data based on specific direct measurement is usable. Anything else is conjecture, and immediately unusable.

The science is based on many different data sets, estimates, forcasts and raw data all inclusive.

This does not make the assumptions the data is based on correct.

No assumptions are being made. Conclusions are information and fact based.

Right as soon as you prove the science based on pure data and statistical analysis will it become hardcore science, you repeating endlessly that all the articles you've posted links to are proof positive are correct does not make you actually correct.

Science is so much more than the simple picture you're trying to paint. It uses complex data sets as well as a host of forcasting and analysis methods. As has been repeatedly pointed out, other hard sciences use these same methods.