@Tomas

Quote:

It shows that there really is no consensus and that IPCC, politicians and media has been lying about that part all along.

Actually it shows that the denialists are willing to give all credit to one lonely statement as long as it backs their position.

IPCC, while the UN body, is not the only item displaying consensus. 1 person out of alignment with the other 2499 actually displays consensus. Consensus is the major agreement of understanding of scientists. 2499 is more major than 1. And media? Media in the US spends far more time covering the anti-GW science than it's % of acceptance by scientists. By doing so they are part of the problem creating a manufactured debate. And lastly we all know in science the existence of a single paper establishes more testing, at best. So until there is more collaborating evidence this paper is there but really has no impact.

@Poptech

Quote:

You have yet to cite these imaginary thousands of papers.

That's a false statement. This is Volume 6. Go read volumes 1-5 and you will find numerous examples of such papers.

To be fair I'm not the scientists working to make sense of our world. If you truly want to find the thousands of papers go to you nearest major university and have a librarian help you pull the Scientific Journals. It's their job and I've found they are great at it.

@Dandy
Gotta love your cherry picking of sources.
I especially love the link your provided for grand minimum.. Here they are just assuming what kind of effect it could have, when they know nothing about how deep the minimum could be or how it could affect the climate.
Quote:

The current exceptionally long minimum of solar activity has led to the suggestion that the Sun might experience a new grand minimum in the next decades, a prolonged period of low activity similar to the Maunder minimum in the late 17th century. The Maunder minimum is connected to the Little Ice Age, a time of markedly lower temperatures, in particular in the Northern hemisphere. Here we use a coupled climate model to explore the effect of a 21st-century grand minimum on future global temperatures, finding a moderate temperature offset of no more than −0.3°C in the year 2100 relative to a scenario with solar activity similar to recent decades. This temperature decrease is much smaller than the warming expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the century.

They are making a wild assumption that the solar link is weak and that CO2 effect is much stronger even though they have absolutely no evidence for this other than in their flawed computer models that is apparently more important to these people than what happens in the real world.

The only way to know for sure is to way a few years and see what happens...
If the global average temps drop to normal or below normal over the next decades then the CO2 theory has failed.

@BrianK
Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Tomas Quote: It shows that there really is no consensus and that IPCC, politicians and media has been lying about that part all along. Actually it shows that the denialists are willing to give all credit to one lonely statement as long as it backs their position. IPCC, while the UN body, is not the only item displaying consensus. 1 person out of alignment with the other 2499 actually displays consensus. Consensus is the major agreement of understanding of scientists. 2499 is more major than 1. And media? Media in the US spends far more time covering the anti-GW science than it's % of acceptance by scientists. By doing so they are part of the problem creating a manufactured debate. And lastly we all know in science the existence of a single paper establishes more testing, at best. So until there is more collaborating evidence this paper is there but really has no impact.

I seriously dont even know why i bother to even discuss with you. You are so deep into this religion that no one can change your opinion. Even if a new LIA started next year i bet you would go on about how AGW caused blah blah which caused the ice age.
AGW people are just making up stuff as they go along whenever a prediction or model fail and then use that new made up spin/assumption as proof that you were right all along.

This link shows how delusional AGW can be: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
And yet you wonder why you are losing supporters??

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Poptech Quote: You have yet to cite these imaginary thousands of papers. That's a false statement. This is Volume 6. Go read volumes 1-5 and you will find numerous examples of such papers. To be fair I'm not the scientists working to make sense of our world. If you truly want to find the thousands of papers go to you nearest major university and have a librarian help you pull the Scientific Journals. It's their job and I've found they are great at it.

And none of them proves anything. Again just wild assumption based on incomplete understanding of climate and flawed models. Whenever they are found wrong they just adjust the models and add a new non proven assumption about the climate to explain why things did not happen the way the models and theory predicted.

@Tomas

I agree with that argument (not complaining about BrianK though). If you are not prepared to alter your view you should not participate in a discussion. Then you should hold a propaganda meeting. That is a bad thing with politicians. You might get the impression that they are discussing things when it is all propaganda.

@DandyQuote:

Dandy wrote: @Tomas Quote: Tomas wrote: @Dandy [quote] Could it be that what you call "real world observations" actually just is your subjective, cherry picking perception? I can very well remember a report on TV with professor Mojib Latif 10 - 15 years ago, where he showed an animated temperatur forecast world map. This map was obviously derived from a climate model and clearly predicted that Western Europe as well as parts of North America would have the luck to stay colder for a while, while the rest of the world would be warming - causing ice caps and glaciers to melt. No, i am not cherry picking. I am talking about predictions like increased hurricane activity,

Increased Atlantic Hurricane Activity Identified

Quote:

Tomas wrote: increased water vapour, increased positive feedbacks,

Increase In Atmospheric Moisture Tied To Human Activities

Quote:

Tomas wrote: less snow and so on.

sceptics vs. science (#88):

"To claim that record snowfall is inconsistent with a warming world betrays a lack of understanding of the link between global warming and extreme precipitation. Warming causes more moisture in the air which leads to more extreme precipitation events. This includes more heavy snowstorms in regions where snowfall conditions are favourable. Far from contradicting global warming, record snowfall is predicted by climate models and consistent with our expectation of more extreme precipitation events."
more...

Quote:

Tomas wrote: Real world observations shows that hurricane activity has been dropping for decades on average,

sceptics vs. science (#16, #41):

"It is unclear whether global warming is increasing hurricane frequency but there is increasing evidence that warming increases hurricane intensity."
more...
even more...

Quote:

Tomas wrote: atmospheric water vapour has been declining over the last years, feedbacks with warming seems to be pointing more negative than positive,

sceptics vs. science (#24):

"Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming."
more...

Quote:

Tomas wrote: snow has been increasing alot over the last decade,

See above...

Quote:

Tomas wrote: they cant find the missing heat/energy in climate system and so on...

skeptics vs. science (#57):

"Oceans are warming across the globe. In fact, globally oceans are accumulating energy at a rate of 4 x 1021 Joules per year - equivalent to 127,000 nuclear plants (which have an average output of 1 gigawatt) pouring their energy directly into the world's oceans. This tells us the planet is in energy imbalance - more energy is coming in than radiating back out to space."
more...

Quote:

Tomas wrote: They also predicted that northern europe would have milder and less snowy summers on average, yet they are now suddenly saying that we should expect cold winters to become the norm. UK and for example scandinavia is one of the areas that was expected to have most of the so called global warming and also to experience it first. Yet we have had the coldest winter in decades while they predicded milder than average and now even say such cold winters will be the norm.

Milder and less snowy summers?
Hmmmmmm - the last 52 summers I experienced were all mild and entirely without snow here - how much less than nothing did they predict?

skeptics vs. science (#78):

"The cold snap is due to a strong phase of the Arctic Oscillation. This is causing cool temperatures at mid-latitudes (eg - Eurasia and North America) and warming in polar regions (Greenland and Arctic Ocean). The warm and cool regions roughly balance each other out with little impact on global temperature."
more...

Quote:

Tomas wrote: This is just them spinning things around because they know this is a result from ocean cycles and solar cycle(s) turning into cooling mode. This winter was a big surprise to most warmists...

skeptics vs. science (#70)

"There are many lines of independent empirical evidence for global warming, from accelerated ice loss from the Arctic to Antarctica to the poleward migration of plant and animal species across the globe."
more...

Quote:

Tomas wrote: I can bet that they will even blame the decades of GLOBAL cooling we will most like have soon on AGW as well and i bet you will blindly believe whatever spin they put on it like a true believer.

Your re-uttering of brainless skeptics rhetorics (mostly consisting of hollow phrases) is really getting boring.
Science is based on facts, not on beliefs...

Quote:

Tomas wrote: Quote: During which of the "previous solar grand minimums" have you been around, old man? Was it the Oort Minimum, Wolf Minimum, Spörer Minimum, Maunder Minimum or Dalton Minimum? There is enough data in records to show that the cooling started out first in Europe before global tempratures went down.

???

I'm sure you can present links to support your claims...

Quote:

Tomas wrote: Some regions experience the warming and cooling cycles years before other regions and i doubt this time will be any different.

This is most likely due to the different environments surrounding your regions...

Quote:

Tomas wrote: It is also believed that jet streams changed duringt he grand minimum which can also explain this years winter and the quick winter cooling in EU during last minimums.

Yes, Jet Streams are appeartently moving poleward:

Historical trends in the jet streams

Widening of the tropical belt in a changing climate

Enhanced Mid-Latitude Tropospheric Warming in Satellite Measurements

Regarding the "grand minimum":

On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth

Quote:

Tomas wrote: A question for you: What exactly is needed to happen for you to switch sides? Would you change your opinion if for example earth cooled now for 1-3 decades or more? When i say cooling i mean return to the "normal" or below "normal" temperatures.

I would start to re-think if we had 1-2 m snow here in Cologne city in June, July August and September every year for some decades...

[/quote]
I am not even going to bother wasting hours to prove you wrong yet again. I have already posted a bunch of links earlier regarding both jet streams, hurricane, moisture and so on.
You are just cherry picking and using old sources. The one about jet streams for example are way outdated and things have changed alot during the last years.
It has been moving SOUTHWARDS during the last 3-4 years. This will be the forth year straight i believe if that trend continues.
And here is one random one i found for hurricane activity: http://www.propertyinsurancecoveragelaw.com/uploads/image/maue%20chart%281%29.jpg
The link you posted was not even global, which again shows how you like to cherry pick to find something that fits your own beliefs.
Quote:

I would start to re-think if we had 1-2 m snow here in Cologne city in June, July August and September every year for some decades...

Haha nice one.. This shows that nothing will change your opinion since that cannot happen and did not happen even during the maunder and dalton minimum. The only way something like that could happen is if interglacial suddenly ended which i doubt will happen in my or your lifetime.

@Tomas

Quote:

seriously dont even know why i bother to even discuss with you. You are so deep into this religion that no one can change your opinion.

The feeling is mutual.

Quote:

This link shows how delusional AGW can be: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

It also shows how delusional anti-AGW can be. For example, we already covered the poor reporting of the UFO seen in England. There is 0 proof that the expert cited is a Global Warming expert. It could be a UFO expert. There is nothing here indicating any papers let alone scientific research into the UFO and Global Warming relationship. It's the press. In the case of this example the "delusion" is due to the media doing a crappy job not the science.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Tomas Quote: seriously dont even know why i bother to even discuss with you. You are so deep into this religion that no one can change your opinion. The feeling is mutual. Quote: This link shows how delusional AGW can be: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm It also shows how delusional anti-AGW can be. For example, we already covered the poor reporting of the UFO seen in England. There is 0 proof that the expert cited is a Global Warming expert. It could be a UFO expert. There is nothing here indicating any papers let alone scientific research into the UFO and Global Warming relationship. It's the press. In the case of this example the "delusion" is due to the media doing a crappy job not the science.

It is not about a UFO. It is a collection of all kinds of stories on what AGW causes. Some of these stories actually have reliable scientific source while others are silly sensationalist garbage made up by media like that story on UFO. I posted that UFO story just for fun because of it being so silly.
That list still shows how much silly science there are around AGW and how much contradicting studies there are on the topic.

@Tomas

Quote:

It is not about a UFO....That list still shows how much silly science there are around AGW and how much contradicting studies there are on the topic.

The example you posted about the UFO story is in that list. That page is about a UFO which has a mention to a link to Global Warming by an expert. We don't know who the expert is. We don't know what subject they are an expert at. We don't know any scientific work such expert has published. There is no scientific work on that link what so ever.

While true some science may exist there's also links which show bad media, as in the case of a UFO, and claims without scientific backing.

There's also science in there that clearly doesn't disprove Global Warming. See if one assumes Global Warming has an impact X on item and that doesn't occur we need to see why. In various cases other assumptions beside GW were incorrect.

If the authors of that page really wanted to focus on the foundation of Global Warming science they should get the cruft out of there.

@BrianK
Like i said, that UFO story i posted just for fun to show how silly media can be. That site is only a collection of different news media stories on what can be the consequence of AGW. Some stories are as silly and has no reliable source like that UFO story while other ones got serious scientific sources.

I posted that link now to show how much contradicting stories and science there is and how everything is blamed on AGW these days. Just take it for what it is... a collection of such articles some serious and others just media hype.

The so called experts in that UFO story are probably some UFO seeking pseudoscientists
When news media talk about experts it could mean anything.

I already made it clear earlier that i did not take it that seriously: http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=31052&forum=17&start=100&viewmode=flat&order=0#561415

Last edited by Tomas on 16-Jun-2010 at 08:21 PM.

@Tomas

Quote:

I posted that link now to show how much contradicting stories and science there is and how everything is blamed on AGW these days. Just take it for what it is... a collection of such articles some serious and others just media hype.

Your had written Quote:

how delusional AGW can be.

If the media has the story wrong, UFO cited on that page is a good example, it's not the case that AGW is delusion. It's the case that the media have done a crappy job. What I see often, and exemplified on this page, is the mistake of a journalist being misapplied by the reader to conclude it's a mistake in the global warming science. More frequently than not I find the media gets the science wrong. My personal opinion is it's our systems failure to train journalists in science or with the scientific method. We wouldn't find someone unknowledgeable in sports writing a sports article. In the MSM this happens all the time with science.

The other thing I find delusional is the conflation of a mistake made by an individual to mischaracterize and misrepresent a group.

@BrianK
Both media and scientists.
That link has examples of both.

Edit: I also wish the scientists involved would at least try to correct media when they completely take a scientific paper out of context.

Last edited by Tomas on 16-Jun-2010 at 10:01 PM.

@Tomas

Quote:

Edit: I also wish the scientists involved would at least try to correct media when they completely take a scientific paper out of context.

You pose my problem in a different angle. Should we train scientists to be better journalists? There are some excellent scientific journalists out there. Carl Zimmer comes to mind as just completed a book of his.

Though something strange happens to humans. We aren't only rationally based but emotionally based. Psychology has demonstrated that when a correction is made the viewers are more likely to accept the error. I agree that correcting is the right thing to do. The next question is how to we get the people to put aside their emotional state of rejection and use their rationality to realize the fixed item is more accurate.

In a recent scientific item but unrelated to global warming look at the treatment of Andrew Wakefield. Wakefield had numerous unethical behaviors surrounding the paper of his that was used to claim vaccines cause autism. When the record was set straight with the paper being redacted and Wakefield discredited people didn't say 'okay we accept we're probably wrong'. Instead they held support ralleys in his favor. There isn't enough banghead icons to append here.

In a way it's often better for the scientist to ignore the incorrect article. Instead of a direct correction they may be better serviced on working ot publish a new article based on correct information and ignoring the first. Simply because it seems people are more accepting of the correction in this manner.

@BrianK
The solar storm thread has some nice examples of bad journalism like for example this: NASA: Civilization will end in 2013 (possibly)/
Norwegian news has also been spreading the same lie and sadly nearly every comment believes it and alot even link it with the mayan 2012 "prediction".

Oh well.. Good to know that we at least agree about one thing.

@Tomas

Quote:

Tomas wrote: @BrianK The solar storm thread has some nice examples of bad journalism like for example this: NASA: Civilization will end in 2013 (possibly)/ Norwegian news has also been spreading the same lie and sadly nearly every comment believes it and alot even link it with the mayan 2012 "prediction".

We know from history that solar flares expose the planet to radiation. We know that electronics are vulvernable to this EMF radiation. Historically we know that humans destroy each other to consume scarce resources. I think the important questions are when will it happen again, what will be impacted, and how do we best protect humanity.

I find the Mayan comment such an absurdity I can't accept the author was serious. However, there will be people reading this which accept that statement as a truism. What the author is doing in a way is mocking those who are rational thought impared. I'm not sure that's entirely upstanding.

Last edited by BrianK on 17-Jun-2010 at 04:43 AM.

@Tomas

Quote:

Tomas wrote: @Dandy Gotta love your cherry picking of sources.

Dito...


Quote:

Tomas wrote: I especially love the link your provided for grand minimum.. Here they are just assuming what kind of effect it could have, when they know nothing about how deep the minimum could be or how it could affect the climate.

At least they are honest about that - and do not lie to the public as you are imputing on them all along.

Quote:

Tomas wrote: Quote: The current exceptionally long minimum of solar activity has led to the suggestion that the Sun might experience a new grand minimum in the next decades, a prolonged period of low activity similar to the Maunder minimum in the late 17th century. The Maunder minimum is connected to the Little Ice Age, a time of markedly lower temperatures, in particular in the Northern hemisphere. Here we use a coupled climate model to explore the effect of a 21st-century grand minimum on future global temperatures, finding a moderate temperature offset of no more than −0.3°C in the year 2100 relative to a scenario with solar activity similar to recent decades. This temperature decrease is much smaller than the warming expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the century. They are making a wild assumption that the solar link is weak and that CO2 effect is much stronger even though they have absolutely no evidence for this other than in their flawed computer models that is apparently more important to these people than what happens in the real world.

No idea why you think its a wild assumption - some suggested "that the Sun might experience a new grand minimum in the next decades" and the scientists are looking into the case by letting a computer simulate the consequences of that (based on "a coupled climate model") around the end of this century.

No talk about the "solar link is weak and CO2 effect is much stronger".

You should read what they wrote about the "mechanism" of atmospheric water vapour, that amplifies minor increase of atmospheric CO2 by storing more heat, which in turn increases atmospheric CO2 again and so on (positive feedback).
If I'm able to understand that you should be able, too - it's not rocket science, you know...

Quote:

Tomas wrote: The only way to know for sure is to way a few years and see what happens...

Basically I'm with you here.
But what if the worst case happens and its too late for countermeasures, after we waited for "a few years"?

And that a worst case really can happen you can see here

Quote:

Tomas wrote: If the global average temps drop to normal or below normal over the next decades then the CO2 theory has failed.

What do you call "normal"?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Tomas

Quote:

Tomas wrote: @BrianK ... AGW people are just making up stuff as they go along whenever a prediction or model fail and then use that new made up spin/assumption ...

Even if they did they did it in a way traceable for me, what I cannot be say of the skeptics arguments..

Quote:

Tomas wrote: ... as proof that you were right all along.

And this part is the typical hollow skeptics lie.

In the same manner you imputed on the scientists they were claiming global warming would lead to an increasing number of hurricanes, while in reality the scientists claim:
"It is unclear whether global warming is increasing hurricane frequency but there is increasing evidence that warming increases hurricane intensity."

Quote:

Tomas wrote: This link shows how delusional AGW can be: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm And yet you wonder why you are losing supporters??

The link just shows what the skeptics impute on the scientists what they alledgedly have said.
I bet if I took the time to check each of those allegations I would find out that 99% of them are just wild skeptics phantasies and that no scientist has ever said so - just like in the hurricane example I gave above...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Tomas

Quote:

Tomas wrote: @BrianK ... Again just wild assumption based on incomplete understanding of climate and flawed models.

But you certainly have a complete understanding of climate and can come up with non-flawed, final models?

Quote:

Tomas wrote: Whenever they are found wrong they just adjust the models and add a new non proven assumption about the climate to explain why things did not happen the way the models and theory predicted.

What do you think how research such work instead?

Should they better leave imperfect models as they are and ignite a series of nuclear bombs in the atmosphere instead in order to increase global temperatures to
proove that their model and theory are correct?


I would say the better way is to check theory and model and - if necessary - to upgrade them in a way that they can reflect reality more precisely.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Tomas

Quote:

Tomas wrote: @Dandy ... I am not even going to bother wasting hours to prove you wrong yet again.

Do you really believe that "hours" would suffice for that?

Quote:

Tomas wrote: I have already posted a bunch of links earlier regarding both jet streams, hurricane, moisture and so on.

Yes - your cherry picked "what's up with that"-links.
Do you really believe "what's up with that" has any scientific value?

Quote:

Tomas wrote: You are just cherry picking and using old sources. The one about jet streams for example are way outdated and things have changed alot during the last years.

And why don't you come up with a link to more recent scientific work on these topics?
What do you think takes more time - you copying & pasting the link you already have or me reading trough 6 "Global Warming"-threads to find the links you mentioned?


Quote:

Tomas wrote: It has been moving SOUTHWARDS during the last 3-4 years. This will be the forth year straight i believe if that trend continues.

Link?

Quote:

Tomas wrote: The link you posted was not even global, which again shows how you like to cherry pick to find something that fits your own beliefs.

I think you are rerferring to the link to the "Science Daily"-article from Aug. 13, 2009 on hurricane activity - this one is at least not outdated, as you claimed above.

May I remind you that you were talking about increased urricane activity in general:
"I am talking about predictions like increased hurricane activity, ".
In your sentence there was no hint that you were expecting an answer with global coverage...

Furthermore I provided another link on this topic, which adds doubt to your claim I was cherry picking...

Quote:

Tomas wrote: And here is one random one i found for hurricane activity:

Ahhhh - I see - randomly finding a link that supports your point suddenly is no cherry picking?


Quote:

Tomas wrote: Quote: I would start to re-think if we had 1-2 m snow here in Cologne city in June, July, August and September every year for some decades... Haha nice one..

Yeah - what would we do without humor...

Quote:

Tomas wrote: This shows that nothing will change your opinion since that cannot happen and did not happen even during the maunder and dalton minimum. The only way something like that could happen is if interglacial suddenly ended which i doubt will happen in my or your lifetime.

Wrong interpretation.
It was meant to mean that arguments that are traceable for me are suited to change my opinion.
It's just that none of the skeptics arguments I read so far meets this condition...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)