rigorousintuition.ca

DrEvil wrote:Quite the bunch of interesting characters. A couple of them even do stuff that's related to the climate for a living
(Seriously though : Why on earth should I listen to a geologist or a nuclear phycisist when I want to know about the climate? It's like going to the dentist for brain surgery. He's a doctor too! )

Sorry DrEvil, but that's an erroneous analogy (which I suspect you are recycling from seeing it somewhere else), planetary climate science involves contextual input from many disciplines, we're not talking about old time meteorology, but Physics, Oceanography, Atmospherics, Biochemistry, Geochemistry, Astrophysics, Meteorologists, Statisticians, etc.. Remember that planetary climate is affected by both internal and external environmental changes, oceans, atmosphere, sun, cosmic rays, etc..

Ben D wrote:..The thing is that average global temperature has increased about 0.8 of a degree Celsius since records began in 1880 until now.

Most of that in the last 40 years. And within the average are extremes, like +2C at high northern latitudes.

Ben D wrote:..On the other hand, the AGW crowd have produced computer climate models 20 years ago that predict a runaway warming in the 21st century,...and we are now 12 years into it and there are no signs of any accelerated warming.

Disingenuous. What do you get out of referring to some unnamed climate modellers as 'the global warming crowd'? I suspect it as an attempt to hide the very large body of observations/evidence to date behind the 'all models are wrong' red herring, but i'm terribly suspicious.
Also, since the 21stC is 88% incomplete, how can you say anything about predictions of it? Why not notice what is going on now?

Ben D wrote:Let's face it, the state of the art in understanding the climate of the planet is far from being complete and trustworthy, it's just a matter of time before this is understood by everyone except the 'flat earthers'.

Imperfect knowledge is no excuse for apathy.

Ben D wrote:This is not relevant to the statistical evidence, but does anyone else have an intuitive 'wait a sec' moment,...it doesn't deem reasonable to imagine that this planet Earth, which has been through god knows what over its history, is so inherently unstable that an increase in CO2 (which constitutes just a mere 0.038% of the the planets atmosphere) from a mere 320 to 385 parts per million by volume over the last 40 years (just 2 PPM per year), is sending it into runaway heating?

You're right, its not relevant to evidence, its a 'common man' appeal using deceitful claims:
- "through god knows what" - actually god is silent on the issue but we do have extensive evidence of what the planet "has been through", thats how we know now is special, its rate of change in particular.
- preindustrial atmospheric co2 conc was 280ppmand thats the baseline not 320.
- the % of bullet to body weight makes no linear limitation on its impact, same goes for greenhouse gases, especially say sulfur hexafluoride.

DrEvil wrote:Just for fun I decided to check out all the signatures to the WSJ piece.
Here's what I came up with (see the links for more) :
..

Good on you DrEvil, thanks for doing my & everyones homework.

What i noticed most about the co-authored text was what it didn't say - it had no alternative explanation for the many anomalous observations that AGW explains, nor a single verifiable correction or insight.
If they had a leg to stand on, you'd think they'd show it.

eyeno wrote:If you move the pole/focal point the grid has to move with it and I don't see how it could be otherwise. I could be wrong, but planet rotation, magnetic, whatever, move that point and everything moves with it.

I'm pretty sure the planet isn't going to do any kind of tilting of its axis, but the magnetic poles move around all the time. The magnetic north pole is currently in Canada, moving towards Russia at about 35 miles/year.
I can't remember the exact number, but I think the earths axis was tilted by something like 2 millimeters (or something. A very small number anyway) because of the earthquake that triggered the tsunami in 2004, so I really doubt any shifts in the magnetic poles are going to move the earth with it.

BenD wrote:...the AGW crowd...

Oh, yes! The old "AGW crowd" -- that vast consensus of scientists, worldwide, represented in peer-reviewed literature, who overwhelmingly contend that human-induced global warming is real.

Yep, that's a crowd alright. A crowded field indeed.

Ben D wrote:
..On the other hand, the AGW crowd have produced computer climate models 20 years ago that predict a runaway warming in the 21st century,...and we are now 12 years into it and there are no signs of any accelerated warming.

wintler2 wrote:
Disingenuous. What do you get out of referring to some unnamed climate modellers as 'the global warming crowd'? I suspect it as an attempt to hide the very large body of observations/evidence to date behind the 'all models are wrong' red herring, but i'm terribly suspicious.
Also, since the 21stC is 88% incomplete, how can you say anything about predictions of it? Why not notice what is going on now?

The other day it rained here on and off for about 8 or 10 hours. For thirty minutes of that it rained so hard I could barely see and it hailed. For the rest of those hours it only sprinkled. If "now" is the hail and the hardest rain "now" does not say much about my weather. Mainly it sprinkled for hours, with a short burst of hard rain and hail. Extrapolating this out over all the hours ( geological historical time over decades or centuries) the take home message was "it sprinkled for hours, with a short burst of hard rain."

A lot of the statistics are cited by governments and NGOs that seek to hide their involvement with governments. Government can = NGO can = corporate personhood can = corporate lobby cash can = carbon tax that will never get spent on making a cleaner environment. I"m suspicious.

I looked at the archives, and I know you might cite independent studies as being funded by "big polluters" and that may be true in some cases but not all. Some are done by people with no ties to big polluters. Hope you don't, I saw em, and not all that interested in debating this much further. I'm not a cause cheerleader here, just an observer passing through.

Not saying that man made global warming isn't true. But i'm suspicious. Not a denier, but per usual, very suspicious, of all, especially when something like a global carbon tax is involved.

(I have now been relegated to the evil denier dungeon, may I rest in denier hell)

I'm pretty sure the planet isn't going to do any kind of tilting of its axis, but the magnetic poles move around all the time. The magnetic north pole is currently in Canada, moving towards Russia at about 35 miles/year.
I can't remember the exact number, but I think the earths axis was tilted by something like 2 millimeters (or something. A very small number anyway) because of the earthquake that triggered the tsunami in 2004, so I really doubt any shifts in the magnetic poles are going to move the earth with it.

That is also my understanding. Pretty much. Since the major weather patterns circle the pole, if the pole moves, the weather moves with it I assume. Major weather pattern circles the pole, and those that live above and below the poles get the "drift" from that. Why would the weather not move globally if the pole moves? Moving pole should equal moving global weather patterns. This seems very basic.

So, if its warmer in some areas these days it stands to reason that at least 'some of it' is because of a moving pole. It would be easy to blame this on man made climate change too. Why is nobody talking about a 35 mile a year pole shift?

And I think I just discovered something today about "global warming" that hits a serious home run for me, thanks to your reminder that it moves that fast. kudos

Ben D wrote:Sorry DrEvil, but that's an erroneous analogy (which I suspect you are recycling from seeing it somewhere else), planetary climate science involves contextual input from many disciplines, we're not talking about old time meteorology, but Physics, Oceanography, Atmospherics, Biochemistry, Geochemistry, Astrophysics, Meteorologists, Statisticians, etc.. Remember that planetary climate is affected by both internal and external environmental changes, oceans, atmosphere, sun, cosmic rays, etc..

Okay, maybe not the best anology. What I meant was that many of the people on that list are scientists, but not climate scientists. If I want to know about the climate I go to the people who spent their lives studying it, not the closest professor of marketing.
And you do realize I was critical of the opinion piece, and not you personally? I really don't see the need to be insinuating whatever it is you are trying to insinuate by saying "which I suspect you are recycling from seeing it somewhere else" (Which I didn't, thank you very much. Hah!).
And I am fully aware that there are many diciplines under the umbrella of climatology and that many things affect the climate, like internal and external environmental changes, oceans, atmosphere, sun, cosmic rays, humans, etc..

Both you Wintler2,and DrEvil, are talking around the 'elephant in the room'. It's not about the messengers who are publicly saying that the actual global temperature increase does not reflect the rhetoric from AGW climate researchers so far, it is about the fact itself.

There is only a 0.8 degree average increase on the 'score board' since 1880 until now. The predictions of accelerated AGW were made initially about 20 years ago,....it hasn't happened. It doesn't matter if the person challenging the AGW rhetoric is a dentist, a climatologist or whoever, facts are facts, get over it!

eyeno wrote:..Some are done by people with no ties to big polluters. Hope you don't, I saw em, and not all that interested in debating this much further.

Some who showing what? You can't/wont/shan't say .. oh dear, have i've hurt your feeling? Is the victim pose really necesary?

eyeno wrote:I'm not a cause cheerleader here, just an observer passing through.

At an average over 3 posts a day every day, you are too modest.

eyeno wrote:Not saying that man made global warming isn't true. But i'm suspicious. Not a denier, but per usual, very suspicious, of all, especially when something like a global carbon tax is involved.

Of course the response to the problem from the mainstream heirarchy is pure self interest & so its solution, carbon taxation, is at best a mild good thing with many negative consequences
I am only a pragmatic supporter of C tax, it is a long way down my list of preferred priorities, but both are secondary to the fact of climate change & instability.

eyeno wrote:(I have now been relegated to the evil denier dungeon, may I rest in denier hell)

If thats all you came for, enjoy.

Simulist wrote:

BenD wrote:...the AGW crowd...

Oh, yes! The old "AGW crowd" -- that vast consensus of scientists, worldwide, represented in peer-reviewed literature, who overwhelmingly contend that human-induced global warming is real.

Yep, that's a crowd alright. A crowded field indeed.

Hi Simulist, you obviously have not kept yourself updated on the Climategate scandal The leaked emails reveal that the scientific peer review process was corrupted by the AGW insiders, by organizing behind the scenes, the publishing of pro-AGW papers and the rejecting of those papers which were not supportive. I'm not going into the names, times, and specifics of the evidence, but it's there on the net for anyone who would like to read about it. And that btw, is why many of the scientific community who had previously accepted AGW in good faith that the peer review process was not skewed, are now joining the ever growing skeptics crowd.

But in any event Simulist, I repeat what I've said to wintler2 and DrEvil, the salient facts concerning the predictions of accelerated AGW which were made initially about 20 years ago, is it hasn't happened. All we can really know at this time is that there has been a 0.8 degree average increase in global temperature over the last 140 years.

On a more esoteric bent my musings...

The same groups have maintained control over earth's population for centuries or thousands of years. The dawning of the agricultural society made this further possible. Growing food in mass means food stored in mass. He who can control the fruits and labors of others can control food stored in mass which equals big power indeed.

He in the past who understood that the poles move at a speed of 35 miles a year, and in which direction, is a master astrologist, astronomer, and mathematician. He and his kin or tribe, over the ages, could preposition themselves to be the benefactor of the best agricultural regions. Always moving in a 'certain' direction over the long ages of time. Floods and foul weather anticipated centuries in advance on a broad scale, but not in any one place with pinpoint accuracy. What was once good growing ground would become a flooded marsh.

As sophisticated as ancient man is, and his math skills speak of it, I feel relatively easy in thinking that these thoughts may not have been lost to him.

Ben D wrote:Both you Wintler2,and DrEvil, are talking around the 'elephant in the room'. It's not about the messengers who are publicly saying that the actual global temperature increase does not reflect the rhetoric from AGW climate researchers so far, it is about the fact itself.

There is only a 0.08 degree average increase on the 'score board' since 1880 until now.

0.8C, as you agreed earlier.

Ben D wrote:The predictions of accelerated AGW were made initially about 20 years ago,....it hasn't happened. It doesn't matter if the person challenging the AGW rhetoric is a dentist, a climatologist or whoever, facts are facts, get over it!

Which predictions are you talking about? Link please.




IPCC ARs 1-4 definately underestimated the rate of glacial & arctic sea ice loss. And loss of human life from 'natural' disasters.

eyeno wrote:
..Some are done by people with no ties to big polluters. Hope you don't, I saw em, and not all that interested in debating this much further.

wintler2wrote:
Some who showing what? You can't/wont/shan't say .. oh dear, have i've hurt your feeling? Is the victim pose really necesary?

Not that I won't, just not that interested. Not a victim, no hurt feelings. This is fun for me, like I said, not a cheerleader. This ain't my cause.

eyeno wrote:
I'm not a cause cheerleader here, just an observer passing through.

wintler2 wrote:
At an average over 3 posts a day every day, you are too modest.

I mean on this subject in particular. I just happened to land here today because of some stuff I saw on the net.

wintler2wrote:
Of course the response to the problem from the mainstream heirarchy is pure self interest & so its solution, carbon taxation, is at best a mild good thing with many negative consequences

I am only a pragmatic supporter of C tax, it is a long way down my list of preferred priorities, but both are secondary to the fact of climate change & instability.

We agree.

eyeno wrote:
(I have now been relegated to the evil denier dungeon, may I rest in denier hell)

wintler2 wrote:
If thats all you came for, enjoy.

I do ok in the dungeon. Like I said, this is for edutainment for me. I really don't want to become focused on any one issue. I landed in this thread because I noticed the pole shift data. I don't have many true causes I care to make a religion out of.

No harm no foul I hope.

wintler2 wrote:

Ben D wrote:Both you Wintler2,and DrEvil, are talking around the 'elephant in the room'. It's not about the messengers who are publicly saying that the actual global temperature increase does not reflect the rhetoric from AGW climate researchers so far, it is about the fact itself.

There is only a 0.08 degree average increase on the 'score board' since 1880 until now.

0.8C, as you agreed earlier.

Ben D wrote:The predictions of accelerated AGW were made initially about 20 years ago,....it hasn't happened. It doesn't matter if the person challenging the AGW rhetoric is a dentist, a climatologist or whoever, facts are facts, get over it!

Which predictions are you talking about? Link please.




IPCC ARs 1-4 definately underestimated the rate of glacial & arctic sea ice loss. And loss of human life from 'natural' disasters.

Thanks for tip on temp error,.fixed

Now bear in mind that the IPCC revises their projections from time to time as real data comes available so one would need to see the first issue predictions to know for sure how it tracks the first 12 years of this century.

Anyway here is one from Hansen 1988...

http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_TemperatureProjections.htm

Here is a graph for IPCC AR4 projection against GISTEMP, you will note that divergence starts about 2005...


http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/temperature-records/comp_monck3.jpg/view