BernardR wrote:Mr. O"Donnell. I am very much afraid that you don't know what you are talking about. You appear to know very little about the alleged global warming.
I don't know what I'm talking about? After I gave evidence that proved Dr. Lomborg wrong?
Quote:Now, I can give you a great deal of evidence that disputes the predictions of the IPCC( You do know who that is, don't you?) but I will begin with one of the most pressing problems ADMITTED TO BY THE IPCC( see IPCC 2001a:12:executive summary)
What a wonderful thing, you've done. I give you direct links, full reference and you just give me some measly IPCC 2001a:12:executive summary. You give no link telling me where exactly I can find it, you don't even quote the part you're talking from. How disingenuous of you.
Quote:The observed tropospheric temperature, derived from satellites, essentially shows no trend. Whereas the model expects a warming of about O.224 DEGREES C per decade, the tropospheric data a warming of only 0.034 DEGREES per decade- a warming of less than a sixth of he expected amount.
Which study is this? Hm? Could you tell me that? Huh? Tell me which study it is, and don't blow me off by stating that it's referenced in the IPCC, because guess what? They aren't reference in the IPCC.
You have to search inside the reports themselves for the references, but seeing as you never give the full reference of these documents you keep using or show me where exactly within the IPCC I can find them, I can't find it.
You're being disingenuous here. I think I may be able to counter your argument about the troposphere, but I need to know which study you're talking about first.
Ah, but I doubt you will tell me. Deep down, you're afraid that if you do tell me, I'll be able to prove you wrong. So you won't tell me, giving the reason that I should do my own work, right?
Imagine doing that for a thesis.
"I'm not giving you my sources. Find them yourself."
BernardR wrote:Mr. O"Donnell. I am very much afraid that you don't know what you are talking about. You appear to know very little about the alleged global warming.
Now, I can give you a great deal of evidence that disputes the predictions of the IPCC( You do know who that is, don't you?) but I will begin with one of the most pressing problems ADMITTED TO BY THE IPCC( see IPCC 2001a:12:executive summary) relates to the measurement of the troposphere from all regions of the globe. The observed tropospheric temperature, derived from satellites, essentially shows no trend. Whereas the model expects a warming of about O.224 DEGREES C per decade, the tropospheric data a warming of only 0.034 DEGREES per decade- a warming of less than a sixth of he expected amount, This is truly important for our long term warming prediction, Little or no temperature increase in the troposphere means much less water feedback and a much smaller warming estimate.
ALL THAT ALLEGED EVIDENCE IS PAID FOR BY THE OIL INTERESTS AND MANUFACTURERS.
Yes, Plain Ol Me and you give evidence that "All that evidence is paid for by the oil interests and manufacturers"
When you do, your statement will mean something. Until then, it is a meaningless statement!
Very well, Mr. O'Donnell- since you are a scientist, you will be able to quickly show that the studies below are bogus. I have a few of them but I will give them to you one at a time--
Global Warming: The Satellite Saga Continues
By Roy Spencer :
The results of two research studies announced this week address the infamous discrepancy between satellite and surface thermometer trends over the last 25 years. The original satellite dataset produced by the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) now has a warming trend of 0.08 deg. C/decade since 1979, while the surface thermometer trend is two to three times this value. Climate models, in contrast, claim that any surface warming as a result of global warming should be amplified with height, not reduced. This has led to varying levels of concern in the climate community that the theory contained in the climate models might be in error.
As background, a study published earlier this year by Fu et al. (1) attempted to estimate the amount of tropospheric warming by a simple linear combination of the stratospheric and tropospheric channels of the Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) flying on NOAA polar-orbiting weather satellites. (The troposphere exists from the surface up to a height of around 8-12 miles, the stratosphere overlays it.) Since the tropospheric channel has about 15% influence from the stratosphere -- which has cooled strongly since 1979 -- the tropospheric temperature can only be estimated through removal of the stratospheric component. Fu et al. used radiosonde (weather balloon) data to arrive at an optimum combination of the two channels that, when applied to the satellite observed temperature trends, resulted in a tropospheric warming trend that was larger than that estimated by UAH with a different technique.
In the first article announced this week, Fu & Johansen (2) estimate the stratospheric contribution to the satellite instrument's tropospheric channel through a slightly different method than in their original article. They used previously published radiosonde estimates of temperature trends through the lower and middle stratosphere to estimate the error in their method, as well as the amount of stratospheric cooling contained in the tropospheric channel. While we would prefer to leave detailed comments for a journal article, a couple of general points can be made. For the period they examined (1979-2001), our (UAH) lower tropospheric temperature trend is +0.06 deg. C/decade, while their estimate of the (whole) tropospheric trend is +0.09 deg C/decade. You might notice that the difference between these two trends is small, considering the probable error bounds on these estimates and the fact that the two techniques measure somewhat different layers. Also, their method depends on belief in the radiosonde-measured trends in the lower stratosphere, even though we know there are larger errors at those altitudes than in the troposphere -- and most published radiosonde trends for the troposphere show little or no global warming (!) As is often the case, the press release that described the new study made claims that were, in my view, exaggerated. Nevertheless, given the importance of the global warming issue, this line of research is probably worthwhile as it provides an alternative way of interpreting the satellite data.
The other study (3), published by Simon Tett and Peter Thorne at the UK's Hadley Centre, takes issue with the original Fu et al. method. Tett and Thorne claim that when the technique is applied to variety of radiosonde, reanalysis, and global model simulation datasets in the tropics, it leads to results which are more variable than the UAH technique produces. It also mentions the dependence of the method on the characteristics of the radiosonde data that are assumed.
What all this means in terms of observed and predicted global temperature trends remains to be seen. As part of the requirements of the Bush administration's Climate Change Science Plan, a variety of scientists are now sifting through the satellite, thermometer, and radiosonde data, and will report in the coming year on their findings.
References
1. Fu, Q., C.M. Johanson, S.G. Warren, and D.J. Seidel, 2004: Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite inferred tropospheric temperature trends. Nature, Vol. 429, p. 55-58.
2. Fu, Q., and C.M. Johanson, 2004. Stratospheric influences on MSU-derived tropospheric temperature trends: A direct error analysis. Journal of Climate, to be published December 15, 2004
3. Tett, S., and P. Thorne, 2004: Tropospheric temperature series from satellites. December 2, 2004, at Nature online (subscription required.)
( I am not scientifically trained, Mr. O'Donnell, but even I can see that the 0.09CDec. is not at all in line with the outrageous levels predicted by the sky is falling crowd---.22C per decade to.40C per decade)
Note the footnotes and explore if you wish!!!
Mr. O'Donnell-You may also wish to try to access --Santer et. al. "Interpreting differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower atmosphere" Science 287:1.227-32
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050811_global_warming.html
Also, may I remind you that all of the articles require subscription or paying. I'm not paying $30 just to access an article and prove you wrong. So I thought I'd just post the above article and be done with this.
I'll get back to you on that Science article, though...
BernardR wrote:Yes, Plain Ol Me and you give evidence that "All that evidence is paid for by the oil interests and manufacturers"
When you do, your statement will mean something. Until then, it is a meaningless statement!
Don't we all wish that poor Bernard did not do his work backwards. Science, of which he is painfully unaware, begins with the process of observation. One observes natural phenomenon, like drowning polar bears and melting glaciers and warmer weather. Then, one develops an hypothesis and tests it. Bernard starts with an opinion. Instead of science, he gives us yellow journalism.
GO Global Warming
I dont understand everything you guys are talking about because im only 15 and im not an activist or anything but would you rather save our country from suffering, a few other countys from suffering or the WHOLE world from suffering. That is why we need to prevent global warming. Thinkj about what is happening to the world. The ice caps are melting and glacier national park is melting away, we are destroying animals habitat, poluting the air, and cutting off our main life source. (oxygen) Soon the polar ice caps will melt and great places like flordia california and hawaii and other cool places are going to fall into the ocean. Anyway you can still foight global warming and terrorism at the same time!
Re: GO Global Warming
supernerd1217 wrote:I dont understand everything you guys are talking about because im only 15 and im not an activist or anything but would you rather save our country from suffering, a few other countys from suffering or the WHOLE world from suffering. That is why we need to prevent global warming. Thinkj about what is happening to the world. The ice caps are melting and glacier national park is melting away, we are destroying animals habitat, poluting the air, and cutting off our main life source. (oxygen) Soon the polar ice caps will melt and great places like flordia california and hawaii and other cool places are going to fall into the ocean. Anyway you can still foight global warming and terrorism at the same time!
Just a tip, supernerd1217, don't believe what every teacher tells you, and don't believe every tv program or documentary. Approach science with a "healthy skepticism." Teachers, especially K-12, are babes in the woods when it comes to science. Some are downright ignorant and will try to fill your mind with absolute nonsense. There is such a thing called "junk science." For starters, you might wish to check out the following:
http://www.junkscience.com/
Don't believe everything you see there either. Think for yourself. Check out the details of issues and scientific theories. Don't believe much unless you see it yourself, and then think twice before believing it.
Well, okie, when do you start following your advice?
Walter Hinteler wrote:Well, okie, when do you start following your advice?
Walter, I've been trying for a long time. Its tough. Its a jungle out there. How about yourself?
Where have I gone wrong and not followed the advice? You are probably talking about global warming and the greenhouse effect? Just because I have not concluded yet that temperature fluctuations are any more than natural cycles or that mankind is on the brink of disaster, I don't see that as not following my advice. It is healthy skepticism. I do not jump on every bandwagon, especially scientific bandwagons driven by political agendas.
I just think that ... well, forget it.
Re: GO Global Warming
okie wrote:supernerd1217 wrote:I dont understand everything you guys are talking about because im only 15 and im not an activist or anything but would you rather save our country from suffering, a few other countys from suffering or the WHOLE world from suffering. That is why we need to prevent global warming. Thinkj about what is happening to the world. The ice caps are melting and glacier national park is melting away, we are destroying animals habitat, poluting the air, and cutting off our main life source. (oxygen) Soon the polar ice caps will melt and great places like flordia california and hawaii and other cool places are going to fall into the ocean. Anyway you can still foight global warming and terrorism at the same time!
Just a tip, supernerd1217, don't believe what every teacher tells you, and don't believe every tv program or documentary. Approach science with a "healthy skepticism." Teachers, especially K-12, are babes in the woods when it comes to science. Some are downright ignorant and will try to fill your mind with absolute nonsense. There is such a thing called "junk science." For starters, you might wish to check out the following:
http://www.junkscience.com/
Don't believe everything you see there either. Think for yourself. Check out the details of issues and scientific theories. Don't believe much unless you see it yourself, and then think twice before believing it.
Supernerd -- I apologize to you on behalf of all real adults and all educated people. This man is encouraging ignorance, in the name of his beliefs. Let me repeat the last phrase, "in the name of his beliefs."
He has demonstrated on other threads that he lacks sophistication, knowledge and understanding.
Furthermore, his advice to you is subversive and anarchical. It is my belief that he never finished college and is no position to judge what is proper science or not.
As you are too young to work, I suggest that you spend the summer -- after you accomplish your summer reading for English -- reading real science.
I think of the teacher who does all the advanced courses at the high school where I have been working -- undergrad from Princeton, grad work at MIT. Or the chairman of the dept who has a doctorate from Cornell. I suppose Okie would have the cheek to say, "Don't listen to these people."
BTW, as a mother and a teacher, let me advise you to take the highest level courses you can. If you are in CP1, move to advanced. If you are in advanced, move to honors. You'll shed the students who act up and the content of the classes will be better and better presented.
Re: GO Global Warming
plainoldme wrote:okie wrote:supernerd1217 wrote:I dont understand everything you guys are talking about because im only 15 and im not an activist or anything but would you rather save our country from suffering, a few other countys from suffering or the WHOLE world from suffering. That is why we need to prevent global warming. Thinkj about what is happening to the world. The ice caps are melting and glacier national park is melting away, we are destroying animals habitat, poluting the air, and cutting off our main life source. (oxygen) Soon the polar ice caps will melt and great places like flordia california and hawaii and other cool places are going to fall into the ocean. Anyway you can still foight global warming and terrorism at the same time!
Just a tip, supernerd1217, don't believe what every teacher tells you, and don't believe every tv program or documentary. Approach science with a "healthy skepticism." Teachers, especially K-12, are babes in the woods when it comes to science. Some are downright ignorant and will try to fill your mind with absolute nonsense. There is such a thing called "junk science." For starters, you might wish to check out the following:
http://www.junkscience.com/
Don't believe everything you see there either. Think for yourself. Check out the details of issues and scientific theories. Don't believe much unless you see it yourself, and then think twice before believing it.
Supernerd -- I apologize to you on behalf of all real adults and all educated people. This man is encouraging ignorance, in the name of his beliefs. Let me repeat the last phrase, "in the name of his beliefs."
He has demonstrated on other threads that he lacks sophistication, knowledge and understanding.
Furthermore, his advice to you is subversive and anarchical. It is my belief that he never finished college and is no position to judge what is proper science or not.
As you are too young to work, I suggest that you spend the summer -- after you accomplish your summer reading for English -- reading real science.
I think of the teacher who does all the advanced courses at the high school where I have been working -- undergrad from Princeton, grad work at MIT. Or the chairman of the dept who has a doctorate from Cornell. I suppose Okie would have the cheek to say, "Don't listen to these people."
BTW, as a mother and a teacher, let me advise you to take the highest level courses you can. If you are in CP1, move to advanced. If you are in advanced, move to honors. You'll shed the students who act up and the content of the classes will be better and better presented.
Maybe layoff the angst a bit plainoldme. Preaching from YOUR beliefs is no better. Especially coupled with your acidic ad hominems.
McG -- Conservatives never know what an ad hominem is. I notice you allowed Okie to call me a liar. Besides, I'm right and you and Okie and BErnardR and wrong, unarmed but lethally dangerous.
plainoldme wrote:McG -- Conservatives never know what an ad hominem is. I notice you allowed Okie to call me a liar. Besides, I'm right and you and Okie and BErnardR and wrong, unarmed but lethally dangerous.
Actually,both of you are correct.
When a teacher tells you something in clas,question them.
You will never learn anything if you just swallow everything teachers tell you without question.
Make them back up what they are saying,ask them questions,challenge their statements.
But do it respectfully.
Mystery -- Touche! My blood does boil a bit at the promotion of ignorance.
FreeDuck wrote:Finn, thank you for taking the time for that response. There are many things there that I would like to respond to or ask about when I have more time, but for now, is it safe to say that it's the surprise factor, the inability to see it coming, that makes terrorism the greater threat in your opinion?
JP, thanks for your response. I think you and I see things in a similar light.
It is the immediacy of terrorism that makes it the greater threat.
FreeDuck wrote:One more thing Finn. Is this the
singularity you speak of? If so, that's very interesting and I'm reading about it now.
Yes, this is the Singularity of which I wrote.
The key to the event is twofold:
* Things of which we can only now imagine will be possible
* By virtue of the preceeding, long standing societal rules and institutions will find themselves in upheaval.
Kurzweil believes the Singularity will occur within the next few decades. Most of us who are alive today, will live through the Singularity.
Mysteryman, Okie, McGedntrix, Finn- I wonder if you have noted the unresponsiveness of plainolme. She KNOWS all about Global Warming but does not even attempt to rebut the post I made.
Global Warming: The Satellite Saga Continues
By Roy Spencer :
The results of two research studies announced this week address the infamous discrepancy between satellite and surface thermometer trends over the last 25 years. The original satellite dataset produced by the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) now has a warming trend of 0.08 deg. C/decade since 1979, while the surface thermometer trend is two to three times this value. Climate models, in contrast, claim that any surface warming as a result of global warming should be amplified with height, not reduced. This has led to varying levels of concern in the climate community that the theory contained in the climate models might be in error.
As background, a study published earlier this year by Fu et al. (1) attempted to estimate the amount of tropospheric warming by a simple linear combination of the stratospheric and tropospheric channels of the Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) flying on NOAA polar-orbiting weather satellites. (The troposphere exists from the surface up to a height of around 8-12 miles, the stratosphere overlays it.) Since the tropospheric channel has about 15% influence from the stratosphere -- which has cooled strongly since 1979 -- the tropospheric temperature can only be estimated through removal of the stratospheric component. Fu et al. used radiosonde (weather balloon) data to arrive at an optimum combination of the two channels that, when applied to the satellite observed temperature trends, resulted in a tropospheric warming trend that was larger than that estimated by UAH with a different technique.
In the first article announced this week, Fu & Johansen (2) estimate the stratospheric contribution to the satellite instrument's tropospheric channel through a slightly different method than in their original article. They used previously published radiosonde estimates of temperature trends through the lower and middle stratosphere to estimate the error in their method, as well as the amount of stratospheric cooling contained in the tropospheric channel. While we would prefer to leave detailed comments for a journal article, a couple of general points can be made. For the period they examined (1979-2001), our (UAH) lower tropospheric temperature trend is +0.06 deg. C/decade, while their estimate of the (whole) tropospheric trend is +0.09 deg C/decade. You might notice that the difference between these two trends is small, considering the probable error bounds on these estimates and the fact that the two techniques measure somewhat different layers. Also, their method depends on belief in the radiosonde-measured trends in the lower stratosphere, even though we know there are larger errors at those altitudes than in the troposphere -- and most published radiosonde trends for the troposphere show little or no global warming (!) As is often the case, the press release that described the new study made claims that were, in my view, exaggerated. Nevertheless, given the importance of the global warming issue, this line of research is probably worthwhile as it provides an alternative way of interpreting the satellite data.
The other study (3), published by Simon Tett and Peter Thorne at the UK's Hadley Centre, takes issue with the original Fu et al. method. Tett and Thorne claim that when the technique is applied to variety of radiosonde, reanalysis, and global model simulation datasets in the tropics, it leads to results which are more variable than the UAH technique produces. It also mentions the dependence of the method on the characteristics of the radiosonde data that are assumed.
What all this means in terms of observed and predicted global temperature trends remains to be seen. As part of the requirements of the Bush administration's Climate Change Science Plan, a variety of scientists are now sifting through the satellite, thermometer, and radiosonde data, and will report in the coming year on their findings.
References
1. Fu, Q., C.M. Johanson, S.G. Warren, and D.J. Seidel, 2004: Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite inferred tropospheric temperature trends. Nature, Vol. 429, p. 55-58.
2. Fu, Q., and C.M. Johanson, 2004. Stratospheric influences on MSU-derived tropospheric temperature trends: A direct error analysis. Journal of Climate, to be published December 15, 2004
3. Tett, S., and P. Thorne, 2004: Tropospheric temperature series from satellites. December 2, 2004, at Nature online (subscription required.)
( I can see that the 0.09CDec. is not at all in line with the outrageous levels predicted by the sky is falling crowd---.22C per decade to.40C per decade)
Note the footnotes and explore if you wish!!
************************************************************
If plainolme knew ANYTHING about "global warming" she would, of course, attempt to rebut the evidence above. But alas, she merely blabbers on and on without making any solid statement. My evidence stands unrebutted!!!!!
