Uh Oh Al, scientist on Al's film

[MtnBiker]

Kathianne, are you studdering?

 

[Annie]

Kathianne, are you studdering?

Perhaps? Did I do something wrong with this?

 

[MtnBiker]

Nope, I thought it was the same post as before. My mistake.

 

[no1tovote4]

See http://grida.se/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-02.PDF pg. 116 (18 of 84) in Section 2.1.

See also http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared...tetalGRL05.pdf (2 of 4)







The best data to use is simply to ask average people who have been alive. The longer Americans have been alive, the more likely they recognize that the temperature has increased. See also the references above. Also check the mean temperatures yourself.

That's not the best information. First of all because climate change of the sort Al Gore is talking about didn't happen in any person's lifetime it was over 10,000 years ago. So, recognizing the weather patterns of the time would be difficult even for the eldest of humans. Secondly, older people tend to be more sensitive to even the same heat that they used to suffer through...

Just asking really old people is not going to tell you if global climate shift is going to happen, nor is asking climatologists making guesses based on computer models that cannot possibly have all of the salient variables as this new science is still in its infancy. They barely understand themselves what is happening, or what can happen. Any scientist who can tell you with "certainty" that humans have caused this is working with emotive science and not scientific method...

While emotive science is fun to make silly movies about, it is rarely accurate.

 

[catatonic]

Replying to 4 points raised,

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html

The simulations are in infancy, but real nonemotive science has shown with statistical certainty that humans have significantly caused some of this. Serious truthseekers use statistics to compare long-term vs. short-term trends. The real debate is over.

Not the nervous system. Sight.

 

[Mr.Conley]

That's not the best information. First of all because climate change of the sort Al Gore is talking about didn't happen in any person's lifetime it was over 10,000 years ago. So, recognizing the weather patterns of the time would be difficult even for the eldest of humans. Secondly, older people tend to be more sensitive to even the same heat that they used to suffer through...

Just asking really old people is not going to tell you if global climate shift is going to happen, nor is asking climatologists making guesses based on computer models that cannot possibly have all of the salient variables as this new science is still in its infancy. They barely understand themselves what is happening, or what can happen. Any scientist who can tell you with "certainty" that humans have caused this is working with emotive science and not scientific method...

While emotive science is fun to make silly movies about, it is rarely accurate.

Climatology is still very much new territory for us. Earth's climate incredibly complex. We've built supercomputers whose sole job is to model the climate. Before IBM built Blue Gene, the Earth Simulator was the world fastest supercomputer. The Earth Simulator's job is, you guessed it, to simulate the Earth, especially the climate. Yet, despite being the world's fastest computer for several years, and the Earth Simulator is still among the top ten supercomputers globally, it can only begin to fully simulate all the details of Earth's climate. While NEC's Earth Simulator simulates large atmospheric events such as hurricanes, storms, and pressure fronts relatively accurately, localized climatic events can't be computed on anything approaching a global scale. The climate is just too complex. Plus we haven't figured out everything there is to know about the climate, and we can't feed the computers information we don't even know. It's like trying to finish a puzzle with half the pieces missing. There are just so many limitations in the realm of climate study, that I find myself hard pressed to believe what a climatologist says based on those machines with out question. At this stage, it's more probabilities then anything else. That doesn't mean we should discount what any climatologist says, just they we should analyse the information with the knowledge that this is still a new field.

 

[sitarro]

Climatology is still very much new territory for us. Earth's climate incredibly complex. We've built supercomputers whose sole job is to model the climate. Before IBM built Blue Gene, the Earth Simulator was the world fastest supercomputer. The Earth Simulator's job is, you guessed it, to simulate the Earth, especially the climate. Yet, despite being the world's fastest computer for several years, and the Earth Simulator is still among the top ten supercomputers globally, it can only begin to fully simulate all the details of Earth's climate. While NEC's Earth Simulator simulates large atmospheric events such as hurricanes, storms, and pressure fronts relatively accurately, localized climatic events can't be computed on anything approaching a global scale. The climate is just too complex. Plus we haven't figured out everything there is to know about the climate, and we can't feed the computers information we don't even know. It's like trying to finish a puzzle with half the pieces missing. There are just so many limitations in the realm of climate study, that I find myself hard pressed to believe what a climatologist says based on those machines with out question. At this stage, it's more probabilities then anything else. That doesn't mean we should discount what any climatologist says, just they we should analyse the information with the knowledge that this is still a new field.

isn't that the whole point of the criticism of Al Hores sensationalism?

 

[no1tovote4]

Replying to 4 points raised,

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html

The simulations are in infancy, but real nonemotive science has shown with statistical certainty that humans have significantly caused some of this. Serious truthseekers use statistics to compare long-term vs. short-term trends. The real debate is over.

Not the nervous system. Sight.

LOL. Statistics are the easiest way to lie and any mathemetician or scientist knows that.

Using statistics we can show that global warming is associated with the number of high school dropouts in Detroit...

Statistics are not a valid method of "truthseeking" when trends are over millenia and when contradictory statistics can be found...

This is truly emotive science if somebody is attempting to prove a theory with statistical information. Coincidental simultaneous occurence can make almost any data seem correlative when it may not in reality correlate at all. This is not scientific method nor an accurate indicator of global warming.

 

[dilloduck]

LOL. Statistics are the easiest way to lie and any mathemetician or scientist knows that.

Using statistics we can show that global warming is associated with the number of high school dropouts in Detroit...

Statistics are not a valid method of "truthseeking" when trends are over millenia and when contradictory statistics can be found...

This is truly emotive science if somebody is attempting to prove a theory with statistical information. Coincidental simultaneous occurence can make almost any data seem correlative when it may not in reality correlate at all. This is not scientific method nor an accurate indicator of global warming.

Nor can it provide any accurate cause for it.

 

[no1tovote4]

Climatology is still very much new territory for us. Earth's climate incredibly complex. We've built supercomputers whose sole job is to model the climate. Before IBM built Blue Gene, the Earth Simulator was the world fastest supercomputer. The Earth Simulator's job is, you guessed it, to simulate the Earth, especially the climate. Yet, despite being the world's fastest computer for several years, and the Earth Simulator is still among the top ten supercomputers globally, it can only begin to fully simulate all the details of Earth's climate. While NEC's Earth Simulator simulates large atmospheric events such as hurricanes, storms, and pressure fronts relatively accurately, localized climatic events can't be computed on anything approaching a global scale. The climate is just too complex. Plus we haven't figured out everything there is to know about the climate, and we can't feed the computers information we don't even know. It's like trying to finish a puzzle with half the pieces missing. There are just so many limitations in the realm of climate study, that I find myself hard pressed to believe what a climatologist says based on those machines with out question. At this stage, it's more probabilities then anything else. That doesn't mean we should discount what any climatologist says, just they we should analyse the information with the knowledge that this is still a new field.

Yes. Exactly. It doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong, just that we really should wait for this infant science to give us real data rather than guesswork...

Shoot, basing it on statistics is hilarious though... I mean really, one can bolster almost any argument, even a fallacious one, by data-picking on reports of even accurate statistics...

 

[MtnBiker]

Climatology is still very much new territory for us. Earth's climate incredibly complex. We've built supercomputers whose sole job is to model the climate. Before IBM built Blue Gene, the Earth Simulator was the world fastest supercomputer. The Earth Simulator's job is, you guessed it, to simulate the Earth, especially the climate. Yet, despite being the world's fastest computer for several years, and the Earth Simulator is still among the top ten supercomputers globally, it can only begin to fully simulate all the details of Earth's climate. While NEC's Earth Simulator simulates large atmospheric events such as hurricanes, storms, and pressure fronts relatively accurately, localized climatic events can't be computed on anything approaching a global scale. The climate is just too complex. Plus we haven't figured out everything there is to know about the climate, and we can't feed the computers information we don't even know. It's like trying to finish a puzzle with half the pieces missing. There are just so many limitations in the realm of climate study, that I find myself hard pressed to believe what a climatologist says based on those machines with out question. At this stage, it's more probabilities then anything else. That doesn't mean we should discount what any climatologist says, just they we should analyse the information with the knowledge that this is still a new field.

True enough, and well said I might add. Let's not forget that computer models are also subject to what infromation is given to them to run the model. Using accurate data in different ways will yeild noticable outcomes.

 

[MtnBiker]

Not the nervous system. Sight.

Peole can see temperature change??

Sight is part of the nervous system.

The best data to use is simply to ask average people who have been alive. The longer Americans have been alive, the more likely they recognize that the temperature has increased.

I would still like to know how it is that a longer living person is more likely to recognize how the temperature has increased by .6C ?

 

[Mr.Conley]

True enough, and well said I might add. Let's not forget that computer models are also subject to what infromation is given to them to run the model. Using accurate data in different ways will yeild noticable.

True, and thanks for the input. I've got in covered though.

Plus we haven't figured out everything there is to know about the climate, and we can't feed the computers information we don't even know. It's like trying to finish a puzzle with half the pieces missing.

isn't that the whole point of the criticism of Al Hores sensationalism?

I don't know if it's the whole point, but it's my critisism of global warming.

Yes. Exactly. It doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong, just that we really should wait for this infant science to give us real data rather than guesswork...

Shoot, basing it on statistics is hilarious though... I mean really, one can bolster almost any argument, even a fallacious one, by data-picking on reports of even accurate statistics...

Oh God are statistics easy to manipulate. It's pretty easy to correlate two things. Don't write statistics off though. It is possible to show causation and the like, but it's harder.

 

[catatonic]

None of this has anything to do with it. I am not implying people have infrared vision to see temperature change any more than I am implying people can feel the temperature change over their lifetime. Psychology is in its infancy of understanding consciousness, which is no grounds to deny the existence of consciousness. Probability is never proven, nor can it be, which is also irrelevant.

(In third grade the class did a probability experiment. I rolled a 1 with a die using normal rolling techniques every time in my first 20 throws and then I flipped heads my first ten times with a coin. I reported it. I have also observed that if you build a computer/calculator coin flip gambling scenario that places a bet only when total heads or tails outnumber each other, on the outnumbered side, 80% of the time you will get rich, usually multiplying your money by over 10 times, but no matter what if you do it long enough you will go broke. I ran the simulation hundreds of times to record this effect. I reported it. The algorithm is to simply bet on heads and tails moving towards equilibrium. You can duplicate this experiment yourself, although I never tested it on a real coin. It clearly violates the well established fact that you are betting on a 50-50 chance which gives you no way to beat the system, unless it has something to do with random seeds. It's equally true that although there are thermometers everywhere, in rural areas and big cities, in houses, farms, and office buildings, there could be a correlation between all temperature measurement itself and the measurement. And even that correlation could be wrong if it could be measured. But for Pete's Sake, the scientists are right. I'm not your science monkey - if you really know statistics yourself, which is critical to establishing the man earth correlation, you will already know the methods for lying in statistics, and you can find out for yourself if the statisticians are lying here, and they're not.)

It's safe to guess, using what I can see over the time of this thread, despite using very infant arguments from what I'm capable of, using the chances that I will actually be challenged on an intellectual ground, that I have no real challenge. I am justified in putting this thread on ignore.

 

[5stringJeff]

Serious truthseekers use statistics to compare long-term vs. short-term trends. The real debate is over.

Not the nervous system. Sight.

Dude, posting a link and then declaring the debate to be over is a ridiculous tactic. Not to mention, the link shows a one-month comparison to norm, which is hardly a trend. Not to mention, it showed half the US being colder, not warmer.

 

[sitarro]

None of this has anything to do with it. I am not implying people have infrared vision to see temperature change any more than I am implying people can feel the temperature change over their lifetime. Psychology is in its infancy of understanding consciousness, which is no grounds to deny the existence of consciousness. Probability is never proven, nor can it be, which is also irrelevant.

(In third grade the class did a probability experiment. I rolled a 1 with a die using normal rolling techniques every time in my first 20 throws and then I flipped heads my first ten times with a coin. I reported it. I have also observed that if you build a computer/calculator coin flip gambling scenario that places a bet only when total heads or tails outnumber each other, on the outnumbered side, 80% of the time you will get rich, usually multiplying your money by over 10 times, but no matter what if you do it long enough you will go broke. I ran the simulation hundreds of times to record this effect. I reported it. The algorithm is to simply bet on heads and tails moving towards equilibrium. You can duplicate this experiment yourself, although I never tested it on a real coin. It clearly violates the well established fact that you are betting on a 50-50 chance which gives you no way to beat the system, unless it has something to do with random seeds. It's equally true that although there are thermometers everywhere, in rural areas and big cities, in houses, farms, and office buildings, there could be a correlation between all temperature measurement itself and the measurement. And even that correlation could be wrong if it could be measured. But for Pete's Sake, the scientists are right. I'm not your science monkey - if you really know statistics yourself, which is critical to establishing the man earth correlation, you will already know the methods for lying in statistics, and you can find out for yourself if the statisticians are lying here, and they're not.)

It's safe to guess, using what I can see over the time of this thread, despite using very infant arguments from what I'm capable of, using the chances that I will actually be challenged on an intellectual ground, that I have no real challenge. I am justified in putting this thread on ignore.

Interesting that you would mention the need for the ignore button at the same time I was thinking that it might be a good move to ignore your posts as "infant" in their argument as they may be..

 

[jasendorf]

No news here. Bob Carter, Tim Ball, Tim Patterson, Wibjörn Karlén, Roy Spencer... they've all been climate change deniers for a long time. This article is a veritable who's who of the "Friends of Science" anti-Kyoto activist group. Wow... activists giving quotes for a public relations piece (paid for by whom I do wonder...), I'm ***astonished***

 

[MtnBiker]

It's safe to guess, using what I can see over the time of this thread, despite using very infant arguments from what I'm capable of, using the chances that I will actually be challenged on an intellectual ground, that I have no real challenge. I am justified in putting this thread on ignore.

Quite a verbose way of saying you cannot answer a question posed to you.

 

[sitarro]

No news here. Bob Carter, Tim Ball, Tim Patterson, Wibjörn Karlén, Roy Spencer... they've all been climate change deniers for a long time. This article is a veritable who's who of the "Friends of Science" anti-Kyoto activist group. Wow... activists giving quotes for a public relations piece (paid for by whom I do wonder...), I'm ***astonished***

So in your wonderfully sarcastic style you are attempting to discredit these guys right? Do you have any criticism of Al Hores lecture or the "science" he is using? After all when speaking of activist groups pushing their agenda, wouldn't one led by a wooden ex Vice President running back and forth across the globe and putting out a film with the word Truth in the title be one just prime for your criticism? Or are you merely a whore for the Dems?How about Bill Clinton's assertion that he and Al pioneered the Global warming warning.

Are you in favor of the United States signing on to the Kyoto treaty?

 

[catatonic]

"The national science academies of the G8 nations and Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, have signed a statement on the global response to climate change. "

CFCs have massively damaged the ozone layer, despite skeptics and their tactics.

The GOP is facing increasing dissent over Bush's climate change policies, with their 2008 candidate expected to support Kyoto.

5stringjeff and the rest of you, your responses are simply irrelevant. I may answer you MtnBiker as soon as you acknowledge what I have posted here.