Sorry pal, you are the one with no answers. The data is what it is, you just don't like it because it doesn't support your ideology.
If I had gone to grad school it wouldn't have been on daddy's and mommy's dime, or the taxpayer's, or a combination thereof.
When I started grad school my mother was making about $4500 a year as a sales clerk at Woolworth so your disparaging comments about who paid my way are nonsensical.
After grad school (and actually while I was still in grad school), I worked for archaeological firms - private sector. But the work was tied to development and when the recession hit in the '80s, the work dried up. So I went to work carrying mail for 6 years and then hired on at the County as a planner and remained there for 16 years. And now, being retired I work half time on streambed restoration projects. Take my word for it - I did't waste my education; but you'd be surprised how many people I worked with at USPS who had degrees, including one with an MBA. Not to mention someone on AM who still carries mail.
So now that our resumes are both on the table, my point was this - climate change is an argument among scientists and this or that smattering of data doesn't mean all that much and ideology unfortunately plays far too much a role - see the ridiculous notions put forward by the Creation Science Museum for a good example. One side or the other will prevail, but it will be over a period of at least 50 years, which is the average offered by Kuhn as best I recall- for a paradigm shift to occur.
I'm not arguing "facts", I'm arguing how things work in science. I don't have the background to understand the argument and no one else on here does, either. I'm willing to accept that and let the argument play out as it will and, in fact, my preference would be that you guys are correct because if the other side is correct, we're looking at something that's going to be very difficult to fix.
=Bob
Anyone here has the background to understand what the climate warming mob is doing, if they take a little time to listen. Sea ice issue is very simple Look at the 1990 IPCC report linked below. Note: I use the IPCC because it is the actual heart of the global warming movement. I will use their own words to gut them. (by the way, Bob, did you happen to read this report?...it is an interesting read. You could learn a lot).
Go to page 224 and look at the graph of the Northern Hemisphere sea ice (right column top).
There it is. But it is a little off. Oh, they hadn't developed their later technique of picking the correct starting point - damn. The current starting point is there. Look at 1980 and back off one tick. That is their current starting point on all their graphs - 1979. That also just happens to be a relative high. Surprise, surprise, surprise (apologies to Jim N.). You can make a sign wave look like an increasing curve if you chose the starting point correctly. The 1990 report's starting point of 1973 wasn't the low point either. The previous relative low point was 1945. Sea ice was increasing from 1945 - 1979. That is why the cries of a coming ice age were all the rage.
It is easy to see that if anyone uses 1979 as the starting point in sea ice graphs, they are trying to deceive not inform. That is in line with their famous email words "hide the decline". It is all exaggerated.
In fact, they are using the known cycles to create illusory trends by carefully choosing starting points and sometimes end points for their data.
Another great example I found in that 1990 report is page 202. Notice the graph of temperatures of the last 1,000 years. It shows a hotter than today mideval warm period and the little ice age. They later went to great lengths to destroy it and only succeeded in disgracing themselves. Problem is they can't explain the medeval warm period by CO2. So it must die.
Imagine if a year took a century to unfold and you were born in the dead of winter; the coming of summer would seem a frightening change, with temperatures rising dramatically and seemingly without limit.
It has an estimate of 1.3–1.8°C for a doubling of CO2.
But I have a big problem with all the methods I have seen used to determine climate sensitivity. All of them make huge assumptions that they have no way of knowing are true. The climate is too complex to really model like that. All current climate models do not account for clouds or water vapor anywhere close to sufficiently. The climate models and the models to calculate climate sensitivity both assume they know and account accurately for everything. Right now we are still at a point where we have no idea. But 17 years of no statistically significant warming makes a very high climate sensitivity (as AGW relies) seem a remote chance.
Bob, your desmog post uses "there" instead of "their". You should hope their science is a little better thought out and better reviewed.
Imagine if a year took a century to unfold and you were born in the dead of winter; the coming of summer would seem a frightening change, with temperatures rising dramatically and seemingly without limit.
Interesting to see the late surge of ice formation in the Arctic Sea.
We all know sea ice in the North goes in cycles. The most obvious and shortest cycle is yearly. That is easily adjusted by looking at one day this year versus the same day last year.
The next shortest cycle also has highs and lows. The last high was 1979. The previous low was 1945. We should be comparing today's sea ice to data from 1950 (5 years after the relative low). Instead the powers that be compare it to 20 years of data. That 20 years starts at the peak (1979) but ends 7 years before the valley (2007). If you did that with a sign wave, the majority of observations would fall below that "average". It is statistically invalid, scientifically dishonest, and not surprising at all. If you take our 60 year cycle and align it with a year of data, we are in October. The low point is September and 2007. So what they are doing is like comparing October's data to the average of May through July's data. Two big problems I am sure you see immeadiatly.
1. October is just a month beyond minimum. It hasn't had time to add ice to the extent of May (the peak).
2. May through July over states the overall average sea ice extent by not using August and September's data. August and September are the lowest months.
Imagine if a year took a century to unfold and you were born in the dead of winter; the coming of summer would seem a frightening change, with temperatures rising dramatically and seemingly without limit.
Re: Got ice? « Reply #24 on Mar 19, 2012, 9:18pm »
Bill, I believe the reason 1979 is the start year is that is when data from satellites became available. It has nothing to do with a vast conspiracy that you so cherish. It has to do with better data.
How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Adam Smith
Anyone here has the background to understand what the climate warming mob is doing, if they take a little time to listen. Sea ice issue is very simple Look at the 1990 IPCC report linked below.
Um, no, and again for the same reason I've stated any number of times - you are a dilettante who reads reports and then decides which ones best fit your ideology. And everything you write on climate change is driven by your ideology. It's certainly not based upon any original research you've done. Given that, any arguments you offer are questionable. Pooh and Dave love to troll on this issue and I expect nonsense from the. You, OTOH, have what approaches a religiosity while having no ability to back it up beyond the papers that agree with that ideology.
In short, your criticism is more a crusade than it is a rational argument based upon science. This will play out as all paradigmatic fights play out and ideology doesn't count for crap.
Bill, I believe the reason 1979 is the start year is that is when data from satellites became available. It has nothing to do with a vast conspiracy that you so cherish. It has to do with better data.
We find out for sure after all of us are dead.
Not true. Satellite sea ice data was available since 1973. They used it stating in 1973 in the 1990 IPCC report as I linked above.
They changed it later to 1979 because it better suits their desire to give the folks who fund them what they want. For the Scientists it is all about funding.
Read the link below from a Colorado State Professor about funding and AGW.
This is the type of attitude I have found so prevalent in the government agencies I have dealt with or tried to seek funding from over the last quarter century. Funding was going to go to only those who agreed with or did not openly doubt the wisdom of the AGW hypothesis.
Learning that global warming politics was going to trump scientific objectivity a new type of modus operandi was thrust upon the research grant seekers in this broad discipline area. A new group of recent Ph.D. and older scientists decided that to receive research grant support they had to play along with the governmental warming policies. They quickly began cranking out paper after paper showing CO2‘s surprising strong influence on climate. A competitive race was soon underway to see who could ‘out-warm’ the other. And the best and most convincing of the warmers received the biggest grants and the most media coverage. The goal was to verify that rising levels of CO2 were indeed causing climate changes that posed a serious threat to society. Many proved to be very ingenious at arranging data sets or adjusting their numerical models to give the desired warming or climate change results. And all the best warming scenarios made it into well trumped press releases. Any negative results were not covered.
Imagine if a year took a century to unfold and you were born in the dead of winter; the coming of summer would seem a frightening change, with temperatures rising dramatically and seemingly without limit.
Anyone here has the background to understand what the climate warming mob is doing, if they take a little time to listen. Sea ice issue is very simple Look at the 1990 IPCC report linked below.
Um, no, and again for the same reason I've stated any number of times - you are a dilettante who reads reports and then decides which ones best fit your ideology. And everything you write on climate change is driven by your ideology. It's certainly not based upon any original research you've done. Given that, any arguments you offer are questionable. Pooh and Dave love to troll on this issue and I expect nonsense from the. You, OTOH, have what approaches a religiosity while having no ability to back it up beyond the papers that agree with that ideology.
In short, your criticism is more a crusade than it is a rational argument based upon science. This will play out as all paradigmatic fights play out and ideology doesn't count for crap.
=Bob
That is not true Bob. I have read things that go against AGW and dismissed them as not true. I simply seek truth. I seek to understand and evaluate suggested actions based upon what others think the truth is. The fact that I come to conclusions that you don't like doesn't mean I am on some "crusade".
You on the other hand, are a blind sheep who doesn't believe opening your eyes will reveal anything.
Imagine if a year took a century to unfold and you were born in the dead of winter; the coming of summer would seem a frightening change, with temperatures rising dramatically and seemingly without limit.
How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Adam Smith
Bill, the Heartland Institute? I went to their website. They are part of your conspiracy group.
They are a voice that is not funded by our 1984-type government propaganda machine.
Eisenhower warned about this during the same speech in which he warned about the military industrial complex. Funding of science will distort the findings when government only funds those with certain types of results. You get what you pay for.
Imagine if a year took a century to unfold and you were born in the dead of winter; the coming of summer would seem a frightening change, with temperatures rising dramatically and seemingly without limit.
Imagine if a year took a century to unfold and you were born in the dead of winter; the coming of summer would seem a frightening change, with temperatures rising dramatically and seemingly without limit.
Bill, you have always refused to say what you do for a living and who you work for. For all I know you are a paid provocateur for the Koch Brothers. You are always saying that scientists are in the pay of somebody and they lie for money. So, who butters your bread?
How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Adam Smith
Bill, you have always refused to say what you do for a living and who you work for. For all I know you are a paid provocateur for the Koch Brothers. You are always saying that scientists are in the pay of somebody and they lie for money. So, who butters your bread?
Judge me by my words. You don't need to know anything else. I judge Scientists by their words (and deeds). I use the other stuff to explain why they must not see the truth that is so plain.
Imagine if a year took a century to unfold and you were born in the dead of winter; the coming of summer would seem a frightening change, with temperatures rising dramatically and seemingly without limit.
Bill, you have always refused to say what you do for a living and who you work for. For all I know you are a paid provocateur for the Koch Brothers. You are always saying that scientists are in the pay of somebody and they lie for money. So, who butters your bread?
Judge me by my words. You don't need to know anything else. I judge Scientists by their words (and deeds). I use the other stuff to explain why they must not see the truth that is so plain.
How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Adam Smith
Judge me by my words. You don't need to know anything else. I judge Scientists by their words (and deeds). I use the other stuff to explain why they must not see the truth that is so plain.
LOL
Judging you by your words is what I do.
Great. That and an open mind is all I ask.
Did you read the 1990 IPCC report about Sea Ice that I linked? That report included the following:
Since about 1976 the areal extent of sea-ice in the Northern Hemisphere has varied about a constant climatological level but in 1972-1975 sea-ice extent was significantly less.
1979 is a relative peak in sea ice. It was "significantly less" a few years before and now. Looking from 1979-on is a huge mistake if truth is the objective.
Imagine if a year took a century to unfold and you were born in the dead of winter; the coming of summer would seem a frightening change, with temperatures rising dramatically and seemingly without limit.
Detailed data on the extent of Arctic sea ice is available from ship and other scientific observations since at least 1953, and from weekly satellite observations since 1972.
The 1972 to 1979 measurements of sea ice in the north was a big contributor to the "coming ice age" scare. 1979 is used because it is a relative high of sea ice. It is dishonest to start all their graphs from 1979. But they have to ignore the 1972-1979 data because it greatly deminishes their claim.
Imagine if a year took a century to unfold and you were born in the dead of winter; the coming of summer would seem a frightening change, with temperatures rising dramatically and seemingly without limit.
Detailed data on the extent of Arctic sea ice is available from ship and other scientific observations since at least 1953, and from weekly satellite observations since 1972.
The 1972 to 1979 measurements of sea ice in the north was a big contributor to the "coming ice age" scare. 1979 is used because it is a relative high of sea ice. It is dishonest to start all their graphs from 1979. But they have to ignore the 1972-1979 data because it greatly deminishes their claim.
How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Adam Smith
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/home.png "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/help.png "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/search.png "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/login.png "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/register.png "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/search2.png "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/print.png "[Print]")
Author
Logged![[avatar]](http://i325.photobucket.com/albums/k387/aztecwin/th_Annoyer-1.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h319/davdesid/red_wolf6.jpg "[avatar]")
Where do these dunderheads come from?