Subscribe Contribute Advertise Facebook Twitter Instagram Forums Newsletter
The Carbon Flame War
Display Avatars Sort By:
Steve O
(HechoEnDetroit) - F

Locale: South Kak
Re: Re: Sea levels are currently falling. on 12/13/2008 11:16:03 MST Print View

"Tossing the alphabet salad is fun, but Garbage in - Garbage out applies more to the models made by computer science graduates...."

The point was that you tried to look at the graph as say that sea levels are falling, by using a linear model. If you use a linear model, at least use the theory that goes along with it.
You don't need to look at the model that incorporates air pressure or seasons to know that you can't conclude that sea levels are falling with that data.

Also, you cant look at a few years of data to determine a trend (of any meaning) with data that are this noisy. You need long periods of data, preferably MUCH longer than the whole 35 years in the graph you posted (not to mention your use of the final 3 years to draw a conclusion).
For example, if you were to look at 1996-1998, you might say that the sea level would increase at a much higher rate, compared to previous years. WRONG
You can twist data to say anything you want with too short of a snapshot.

=bad science

Edited by HechoEnDetroit on 12/13/2008 12:30:42 MST.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Re: Re: Re: Sea levels are currently falling. on 12/14/2008 10:06:45 MST Print View

Steve, I take your points... But:

If you look at the title of the post, it doesn't say sea levels are trending downwards, or that any long term conclusions can be drawn. It says, sea levels are *currently* falling, which they are.

It would indeed be nice to have more than 35 years of data, but that's how long the satellite tech has been available, so that's all we have to go on.

As for your comment on the data 1996-98 not being indicative of an accelerating trend, well, indeed! Go tell it to the climate alarmists. Dean chastises me for showing a graph starting in 1998. Fair enough (although it was alonside a graph stating in 1979), but equally, the same criticism should be levelled at wikipedia graphs and thinking which *stops* in 1998. It cuts both ways.

1997: IPCC report indicates possible sea level rise of 50 feet by 2050.
1998: The GIGO modellers tell us the sea will rise "tens of meters within decades".
2007: IPCC downgrades it's prediction to 50 *inches* by 2050
2008: Al Gore buys a sea front condo.

That's a more telling trend. The tide is turning.

Edited by tallbloke on 12/14/2008 10:11:24 MST.

George Matthews
(gmatthews) - MLife
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sea levels are currently falling. on 12/15/2008 17:40:02 MST Print View

The tide is turning.


Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

The sun and earth's temperature on 12/18/2008 04:24:14 MST Print View

I came across this article today:
Which got me thinking again about trying to isolate the influence of the sunspot cycles in the temperature record. I filtered out the effects of the oceanic oscillations and whatever else may be causing multidecadal rises and falls by applying a simple trend adjustment and averaging the data over 1/3 the length of the sunspot cycle of around 11 years, and came up with these graphs. I hope you'll find them interesting.

The green lines are the averaged sunspot numbers and the red line is the Hadley temperature record. the scale is fairly irrelevant. this is just an exercise in wiggle matching.

Up until now, it has been thought that variations in the suns output of radiation over the sunspot cycle were too small to have much effect on temperatures. Given the new discoveries by NASA in terms of the magnetic flux between sun and earth reconnecting every eight minutes, I think we may be on the brink of new understanding about the connection between the suns output, the interplanetary magnetic flux and earth's short term climatic fluctuations.

Northern Hemisphere 1980-2008

nh 80
The extra wide temp band around the last cycle may be an effect of the '98 El Nino.

Southern hemisphere 1950-2008

sh 50
The relatively small temperature drop between solar cycles 21 and 22 in the early '80's may be linked to the big '83 El Nino.

Of additional related interest is this graph produced by NASA's Ching Cheh Hung. It shows the correlation between the strength of suspot cycles and the frequency and distribution of planetary alignments involving Venus Earth and Jupiter. Up until now it's been thought that the planets influence on the sun is negligibly small, because only gravity, and not magnetism has been considered.

Jupiter's magnetosphere is the largest object in the solar system, including the sun. If you want to demonstrate to yourself how much stronger magnetism is than gravity, just place a pin between an itty bitty magnet and the huge bulk of the earth. ;-)

In the periods during which large numbers of alignments of the three planets get 'out of phase' with the suns ~11 year cycle, the numbers of sunspots appearing diminishes. This may be due to a 'beat resonance' effect which amplifies or diminishes the amount of 'stirring' of the very hot and very fluid matter the sun is thought to be composed of. This may in turn affect sunspot production.

Tentative hypothesis:
Less sunspots, less vigorous transfer of energy in magnetic reconnection events, slower solar wind, more incoming galactic rays, more cloud formation - Cooler climate.

We are currently in a prolonged solar minimum between cycle 23 and cycle 24. The planetary alignment cycle is out of phase with the solar cycle. This will probably mean lower sunspot activity during cycle 24 (when/if it finally gets going). I predict an Rmax for monthly sunspot numbers of 65 or less. This compares with Rmax's of well over 100 for several recent cycles, one of the most energetic periods of solar activity for 8000 years.

Edited by tallbloke on 12/18/2008 05:26:59 MST.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Consensus? What consensus? on 12/20/2008 03:14:48 MST Print View

POZNAN, Poland, December 18, 2008 - The UN global warming conference which concluded Friday in Poland faced a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. A newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report was released last week featuring the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN.

The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

Rick Dreher
(halfturbo) - MLife

Locale: Northernish California
Re: Consensus? What consensus? on 12/20/2008 14:16:28 MST Print View

Clown shoes fitting little tight today, Rog?

I won't belabor the definition of consensus, only note that it can and will never be achieved and thus, presents no milestone in setting policy and action.

As to your magical 650, you can be forgiven for knowing nothing about the machinations and players of the U.S. Senate, but probably should have restrained yourself from gleaning any value from the emissions of senator Inhofe, noted crackpot from one of the nation's most conservative and oily states. I do understand that in buttressing your indefensible position, any old table scrap is welcome.

As to the 650, do some homework, son.

There's not much there, there.

The good news is the incoming administration signals that adults will again be in charge, with actual scientists in charge of science and energy. I fully expect us to move forward from the heads-in-the-sand phase to the problem-solving phase within the next few months.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Re: Re: Consensus? What consensus? on 12/20/2008 14:47:42 MST Print View

Heh, my clumsy boots(tm) are comfy and warm, in this cold winter weather thanks Rick. I'll have a read of your links and come back.
I note there is an objection to the way the blogger is spinning this:

The greenfyre link had me yawning pretty quickly. I'm less interested in the political spin than I am in the actual scientific content of these 650 scientists objections to global alarmism.

It's much easier to find alarmist sites which try to debate by smear and fear than to find ones which answer basic questions such as:

How come the changes in the level of co2 in the atmosphere lag 9 months behind changes in temperature if they are supposed to be causing the temperature change?

How come the temperature has been falling for ten years while levels of man made co2 emmission have risen 15% over the same period?

Is this because they desperately want the debate to be over because the real world is showing their model predictions to be wide of the mark?

Rick Said:
> The good news is the incoming administration signals that adults will again be in charge, with actual scientists in charge of science and energy.

Unfortunately not. One of the head honchos Will be John Holdren. In an interview;
"He added that if the current pace of change continued, a catastrophic sea level rise of 4m (13ft) this century was within the realm of possibility; much higher than previous forecasts."

Referring to the graph you took exception to my interpreation of the other day, sea level rose a whole *two inches* over the 12 years of the fastest warming from 1994 to 2006 before temperatures started falling again and the sea level dropped 5mm or so over the last 3 years.

It's pretty scary that the incoming president is going to be 'advised' by people such as this, and people with vested financial interests such as Gore. I'm glad to see the back of Bush, I hope Obama has the sense to get himself a balanced view from a range of sources before he acts though.

On a more encouraging note, the new government in New Zealand is considering a fundamental review of the 'science' underpinning global warming theory. You can imagine the howls of protest from those who don't want it examined too closely...

Edited by tallbloke on 12/21/2008 09:32:02 MST.

Thom Darrah
(thomdarrah) - MLife

Locale: Southern Oregon
The Carbon Flame War on 12/20/2008 15:07:12 MST Print View

I wish Al Gore would stop by and shovel my driveway.

Charles Maguire
(hikelite) - F

Locale: Virginia
Even CNN meterologists can't take it any more on 12/20/2008 15:19:22 MST Print View

CNN (never accused of being conservative or pro-business/growth) had their second meterologist blow smoke in man-made global warming "myth". The first somewhat recanted over pressure, but when one of media's biggest spinning machine can't keep thier folks on the reservation then obviously things must be bad for anti-US anti-growth crowd.


George Matthews
(gmatthews) - MLife
Re: Re: Re: Consensus? What consensus? on 12/20/2008 16:44:06 MST Print View

Bur-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r, it's cold outside.

That one.

: )

Nate Meinzer
(Rezniem) - F

Locale: San Francisco
Meterologists on 12/20/2008 18:02:53 MST Print View

I love how the only people touted to deny global climate change are TV weathermen--surely the epitome of scientific rigor in the field.

But what do I know, I just hate the U.S. and cars and economic growth.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Re: Even CNN meterologists can't take it any more on 12/21/2008 01:57:01 MST Print View

> when one of media's biggest spinning machine can't keep thier folks on the reservation then obviously things must be bad for anti-US anti-growth crowd.

Interesting that NBC axed the "Forecast Earth" spot inherited in their acquisition of The Weather Channel.

The cold wind of "the wrong sort of climate change" seems to be blowing through the corridors of the media channels at the moment.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Re: Re: Re: Re: Consensus? What consensus? on 12/21/2008 02:35:49 MST Print View

> Bur-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r, it's cold outside.
Hey George,
I read 53% of the states is covered in an average of 3" of snow at the moment. Records being broken all over the place, Even snow in Las Vegas!

Rick, please revisit my followup to your post above for my full reply.

Edited by tallbloke on 12/21/2008 03:16:48 MST.

Diplomatic Mike

Locale: Under a bush in Scotland
Re the carbon flame war on 12/21/2008 04:06:38 MST Print View

Global warming

What effect is methane having on the planet?

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Re: Meterologists on 12/21/2008 04:58:06 MST Print View

Nate said:
> I love how the only people touted to deny global climate change are TV weathermen--surely the epitome of scientific rigor in the field

I posted some comments from the better qualified scientists back on page 7 of this thread, which bear repeating:

Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.

Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."

Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.

Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."

Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."

Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."

Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."

Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.

George Matthews
(gmatthews) - MLife
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consensus? What consensus? on 12/21/2008 10:55:16 MST Print View

2007/2008 winter noaa saidback in March

US National Weather Service ( November 2008...


Time Magazine (Jan 1977),9171,918621-2,00.html


Among scientists who fear that significant worldwide climatic changes have already begun, there are those who believe that another Ice Age is not far ahead—as well as others who predict that a potentially devastating warming trend may occur.

Ice Age doomsayers note evidence that average temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere dropped 1° Celsius during the 1950s and 1960s. Kukla found that the average snow and ice cover in the Northern Hemisphere increased sharply in 1971 compared with the years between 1967 and '70. It reached a peak in '72 and '73 and then retreated about halfway back to what it had been in the late '60s. Now, says Kukla, satellite studies indicate that the snow and ice cover last fall increased again to about the level of '71. German Oceanographer Martin Rodewald has noticed a slow, general cooling of the waters of the North Atlantic and North Pacific and an air-temperature drop in the Arctic regions over Canada and Russia.

George Matthews
(gmatthews) - MLife
Re: Re the carbon flame war on 12/21/2008 11:01:12 MST Print View

Mike R,

So we've reached the shock and awe phase of the debate : )

Kilgore: Smell that? You smell that?
Lance: What?
Kilgore: Nothing in the world smells like that.
Kilgore: The smell, you know that methane smell, the whole thing. Smelled like... VICTORY. Someday this debates's gonna end...

Nate Meinzer
(Rezniem) - F

Locale: San Francisco
The debate is a red herring on 12/21/2008 14:00:49 MST Print View

At some level, the debate is a red herring, because regardless of whether global warming (or cooling) is rapidly occuring because of fossil fuels, fossil fuels are not a viable source of energy for the long-term.

I really get a kick out of the fringe who spend so much time denying global warming without acknowledging that fossil fuels cannot form the basis for a sustainable global community. We simple do not have enough OIL to continue consumption at our current rates for the next century. Furthermore, coal (and other options) cause legitimate, and immediate, health and environmental risks--acid rain, asthma, cancer, etc. (See Beijing, for instance).

So what is the point of the global warming denial movement, if not to just "muddy the waters", so to speak, for the oil and coal industries?

We'll have to move to renewable energy at some point.....regardless of whether Al Gore is right or wrong about the relationship between carbon and global climate.

Edited by Rezniem on 12/21/2008 14:01:34 MST.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Re: The debate is a red herring on 12/21/2008 14:54:33 MST Print View

Hi Nate, good post, and one worth thinking about.
I guess as far as this thread is concerned, I'm primarily interested in the science, and in the integrity of science as a discipline which should be seperate from commercial and political issues if it to be successful in finding the truth about how the world ticks.

There was another thread here in the chaff section which ran for quite a few pages, which was about the viability of the industrialized world we have created. Perhaps that would be the place to take up the issues your raising, though I agree with everything you're saying about pollution, disease etc.

What I don't agree with, is that we should go along with a lie because it's aimed at 'doing the right thing'. If we need to get away from fossil fuels because they are dirty and going to run out anyway, then those are good enough reasons to do it, without any need for fairy stories about sea level rises or hurricanes.

Edited by tallbloke on 12/21/2008 14:55:45 MST.

George Matthews
(gmatthews) - MLife
Re: Re: The debate is a red herring on 12/21/2008 15:26:32 MST Print View

Nate is absolutely right about the future of fossil fuels.

Roger's point that "What I don't agree with, is that we should go along with a lie because it's aimed at 'doing the right thing'."

is to me the crux of the issue. To lie is WRONG. Old folks like me have seen this play out before - 30 years ago when I listened to scientists (geologists) in person versus over Web forums argue climate change.

One day you'll see. But for now quit confusing those that are not fooled by the "Gore-like" lie as those that are blind to pollution, disease, sustainability, crowding, etc.

Edited by gmatthews on 12/21/2008 15:27:43 MST.