Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

reply to post by C0bzz

How is the term, 'fossil fuel, a propagandist term? Coal is a fossil fuel, Oil is a fossil fuel. Both are fossilized matter that are used as a fuel...? Or am I wrong in that coal is not a fossil fuel, or something? How is the term, global warming denier, a propagandist term also? You're denying it, just like how people religiously deny that smoking is bad for them, completely justified in their own head.

In the context of what has been brought up, that is, "Big Oil" seemingly funding both sides of the AGW "debate", I think that we might be more careful with our terms.

Me included. Obviously you're right about coal being a fossil fuel. It has all the characteristics you would expect, no problem. As for oil however, it's a different story. Oil perhaps can be a "fossil" fuel, but it's usually not. It seems that the vast majority of oil in the world is in fact abiotic. There is lots to this, you might Google it for more info, but it's one of the reasons that I find "Peak Oil" to be yet another lie pumped out by Big Oil. Oil is not running out, not by a long shot.

Anyway, in regards to oil, I personally think that continuing to use the term "fossil fuel" only helps push along the Big Oil agenda. I prefer not to be part of that myself, at least to the extent possible.

As far as the term "denier" is concerned, yes, it's a rather blatant propagandist term, and in the interests of fairness, perhaps both "sides" of the debate should attempt to use more accurate, and less inflammatory terms.

First, let me back up a bit. The fact that the above explanation is probably still not sufficient has to do with a more fundamental problem. That is, our "paradigm", or world-view. This is really the foundation of everything we may believe. A quick example might be the Christian, who simply does not believe "God" would ever let something as terrible as AGW worst-case scenarios come to pass. We might chuckle perhaps, remind them of an old flood, whatever, but the point is, they will never accept dire AGW implications, because there is no place for it in their particular paradigm.

Each of us may suffer from the same thing. Reality may not correspond to our beliefs, but worse, it could be a real "foundational" problem, and arguing about specifics is almost premature, if the foundation is too faulty.

And so back to the idea that propaganda is deep within this "debate". Notice, I chose to "assume" that there is indeed a "debate", in this case. If you read what others have posted, they "deny" there is a "real" debate at all. They will tell you the whole matter has been settled, by the best and brightest minds, etc.

That was a rather obvious example, but perhaps reaching to another controversial debate might help clarify this matter even more for the average person.

Abortion. Oh yes, terribly controversial. Let's imagine we have run into a "protest" on a sidewalk somewhere, and we're looking at the signs they're carrying. One says, "Pro Life!". Another says, "Pro Death!", and even has a skull and crossbones too! Yet another says, "Pro Choice!" Perhaps there are coat-hangers, and on and on. Do you see what I'm getting at? Certainly, if an "alien" from "out there" came upon the scene, they would be hard-pressed to figure out what the heck anyone was fighting about.

We could ask what terms would be "better", in our above example. Someone might offer a seemingly "logical" solution, perhaps they would say, "It's about abortion, right? Why not say pro abortion, or anti abortion?" Ah, how simple it can all be! But, if you have ever tuned into this emotional issue, you know it won't be quite as simple as that.

Back to AGW. The term "denier", as you probably know, has a bit of history. In today's world, it's most volatile application has to do with the Holocaust. As you probably know, since you are from Australia, being a "denier" in the case of the official Holocaust story, can get you into trouble. You can be kicked out of various countries, even be put in jail, sometimes for years!

My point here isn't to bring up 60 year old history, but to clear the air, at least a bit. Yes, using the term "denier" is using a propagandist term. And so is something like "Warmer" on the other side. Using these terms is obviously quite popular, but neither is scientific.

Since you are on one side of the fence so firmly, you may be perhaps irritated that anyone would suggest that a word like "denier" is propagandistic. In your example, you chose the deluded smoker, in denial. Not the best example in my opinion, most smokers don't "deny" that smoking is bad for their health, although some may deny that it is a problem for them personally.

Either way, it is "insulting" precisely because it makes an issue "personal". Of course, you may feel that all the facts are solidly on your side, no problem, firm belief seems to be here to stay when it comes to some issues. But we should all concede that we need not get personal, or resort to ad homs, etc. By the time we succumb to the temptation to belittle someone, most of the time, we're really saying more about ourselves. I know, I'm asking for it, with my small attempt to raise things up, after so much water under the bridge already.

As for me, I don't mind being called a "denier". Who cares? It really says more about the person using the term, and probably not much about the one it's casually thrown at.

Personally, I think it's still too early to dismiss the possibility that AGW may be occurring. As I've said before, I doubt it, but at the risk of irritating the true believers further, I doubt AGW not so much for any particular "scientific" reasons, but because my paradigm is admittedly skewed to questioning the "official" or accepted. I have gone down my path, and I refuse to trust our masters. Others do not accept that TPTB have as much power, as I have come to believe they have. We will most certainly draw different conclusions, even if we evaluate the exact same data.

I do thank you for your civility in stating your question, without feeling the need to throw out insults. Perhaps we can hope that the tone of this discussion will be elevated a bit more now.

JR

reply to post by Nathan-D


Well at least you decided to bring something other than your delusions to the table this time. Well, almost -

The deeper you drill the worse it gets for you.

Yeah I'm really drowning here. Quick! NoHierarchy, mbkennel, Aristophrenia, CObzz, melatonin, somebody! Throw me a life raft, I never learned how to swim, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!

...
Anyway congratulations - you just linked to a graph from the IPCC which verifies exactly what I've been saying to you, exactly what I was expecting to see, and shows exactly what Jo Nova altered to deliberately deceive people like you ...so this puts me in a deeper hole how?

The IPCC contends that water vapour constitutes a strong positive feedback. Joanne Nova and her friends in the oil industry contend that it does not.

So let's see...where do we even start?

There is no evidence to support this claim

We already tried the common sense approach with you, which surprise surprise had no effect. (But hopefully if there are any lurkers out there dredging their way through this mind-numbing conversation, they're still sane enough to understand when it's humid outside it generally means it gets warmer).

We've also already linked you to a few peer-reviewed papers which have observed and measured the positive forcing of water-vapour feedbacks. That obviously wasn't good enough for you. I see Mel's helped out by adding a few more, but somehow I get the feeling this won't change your mind (hint: because you're delusional). So again, for any of our lurkers - maybe this will help get the point across:

Positive water vapour feedback in climate models confirmed by satellite data (Rind et al, 1991)
WATER VAPOR FEEDBACK AND GLOBAL WARMING (Held & Soden, 2000)
Enhanced positive water vapor feedback associated with tropical deep convection: New evidence from Aura MLS (Su et al, 2006)
Estimates of the Water Vapor Climate Feedback during El Niño–Southern Oscillation (Dessler & Wong, 2009)
Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback increase temperature in Europe (Philipona et al, 2005)
Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content (Santer et al, 2007)
Observed and Simulated Upper-Tropospheric Water Vapor Feedback (Gettelman & Fu, 2008)
Trends and variability in column-integrated atmospheric water vapor (Trenberth et al, 2005)
Water vapor feedback over the Arctic Ocean (Curry et al, 1995)
Precise climate monitoring using complementary satellite data sets (Wentz & Schabel, 2000)
Tropospheric water vapor, convection, and climate (Sherwood et al, 2009)
Observed and simulated seasonal co-variations of outgoing longwave radiation spectrum and surface temperature (Huang & Ramaswamy, 2008)
Quantifying the water vapour feedback associated with post-Pinatubo global cooling (Forster & Collins, 2004)
Global Cooling After the Eruption of Mount Pinatubo: A Test of Climate Feedback by Water Vapor (Soden et al, 2002)
The Radiative Signature of Upper Tropospheric Moistening (Soden et al, 2005)
An Assessment of Climate Feedbacks in Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere Models (Soden & Held, 2005)
The Role of Water Vapor Feedback in Unperturbed Climate Variability and Global Warming (Hall & Manabe, 1999)
Robust Responses of the Hydrological Cycle to Global Warming (Held & Soden, 2006)


But of course NONE of this apparently matters, because some wishy washy concerns over a tropospheric hot spot are enough to just flush every one of these papers and the hundreds of others like them right down the toilet.


Because...professional speaker Joanne Nova says so.


And yes a hotspot is just indicative of any surface warming. Water vapour particles don't care how they're being warmed, or if humans are causing it. How much that "hot spot" shows up in a model simply depends on how strong you decide to make the variables. The GISS model for a 2% increase in Solar radiation for example looks like this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/309a37f2cbb9.gif[/atsimg]

And besides - radiosondes confirm such hotspots over short term periods. A distinct long term trend may be harder to fish out, but it also has a number of problems that muddy the waters:

- there remain multiple issues with moist convection parameterisations, the Madden-Julian oscillation, ENSO, the ‘double ITCZ’ problem, biases, drifts etc.

So what all that means is when you make cynical statements like this:

for Santer to be correct, we have to conclude that the hotspot is hidden in natural variation.

It really makes it hard to believe when you say stuff like this:

I know what noise is.

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
Calm down, ye true believer! Of course, you Catholics have the "true" faith, and that nasty Protestant, he isn't right about even one little thing! And he lies, and blah blah blah...(Make Sign of Cross here. Amen.)

Exactly what I'm talking about. I gave you a chance to challenge me on the facts or the science, and instead you came back with some pointless sarcastic retort about arrogance and loose associations to religion.

Again: the science is all right there for you to read. Despite whatever you've been led to believe - it's not some vague, deeply esoteric language that none of us can understand, so instead we all have to just decide whether we can "believe" in it or not. I mean, if it's too hard for you then I'm sorry, but that's frankly your deal and not mine. And what do you want me to do anyway - just pretend I can't understand it either so I don't come off as "arrogant"?

I'm here to deny ignorance - not start a support group.

And the reason I get snarky is because I'm so sick of being labeled some close minded religious fanatic by people who think that, because they're too lazy to investigate the evidence for themselves, it must mean everybody else is too. The fact that YOU'RE unwilling to process this information based on anything other than faith doesn't mean the rest of us are ok?

And I'm not here to bully people either - I only jumped back into this thread when I saw Nathan trying to bully other people with completely wrong, bad fake physics. So because I put him in his place over that, and he's been reeeeeal indignant about it ever since - that makes me a bully?

So once more: you want to challenge me on the science - please be my guest. Cut down on your own arrogant predisposition on how religiously indoctrinated we all apparently are and the two us might even be able to have a polite, productive conversation about it.

But if you want to just sit there and judge and laugh to yourself about how much everybody else is drinking Al Gore's Kool-Aid...well...that says a lot more about you than it does us.

reply to post by mc_squared

So once more: you want to challenge me on the science - please be my guest. Cut down on your own arrogant predisposition on how religiously indoctrinated we all apparently are and the two us might even be able to have a polite, productive conversation about it. But if you want to just sit there and judge and laugh to yourself about how much everybody else is drinking Al Gore's Kool-Aid...well...that says a lot more about you than it does us.

Well, I have to admit my Catholic vs. Protestant bit was probably a bit over the top! Apologies.

I understand that being labeled "religious", when all you're trying to do is sound the alarm on a very important scientific finding, with seemingly huge ramifications, can be frustrating.

But is my "third" approach completely devoid of value? Perhaps many will agree with you, that's fine. I feel that it's important to bring in a third option, one that may in fact be as important, if not more so, than the "mere" scientific approach is capable of. Perhaps that sounds arrogant.

One of the reasons I tend to focus on the dichotomy, is because it's not entirely legitimate. Just as in the traditional Catholic vs. Protestant religious conflict of the past, the assumptions on both sides are that that answer lies with one of only two options. Today, hopefully we can see that this is often a near-sighted approach when dealing with most issues. Could this idea apply here as well, to the AGW "debate"?

My approach, stemming from my paradigm, does not attempt to focus on the so-called "science" being bandied about on each side. While there may be important findings, important points, certainly thought-provoking theories that come out of the science-centered approach, I think there are limitations that should be considered as well.

You ask to be challenged on the science, but in my opinion, it is a manifestly disingenuous request. You are being challenged, on your own terms, although as you have explained, you do not have much respect for your opponents, such as Nathan-D, for example.

I might perhaps gently challenge you to reread what Schrecken Licht said. In my opinion, your reaction (I think it was yours) to his perhaps laid-back philosophical approach was a bit knee-jerk. But you do realize there is serious "philosophy" behind science, it does not exist in a vacuum. He made some valid points. Perhaps you merely skimmed over it, but much of what he said was hardly "controversial", in any sense. Again, maybe reread with a more open mind.

Of course, whenever a person becomes very convinced that they already have the "truth" of a matter, something odd happens to us. We tend to shut down a lot of inputs that may come our way, regardless of their quality. This may be the zone where things become a bit more "dogmatic" for most of us, as we contend with our natural confirmation bias.

Of course, many of us don't even consider these human dynamics at all. I already responded to CObuzz concerning the use of "propaganda". From the constant usage of words such as "denier", I guess we might suspect that this level of self-awareness is in fact rare. But it is an issue.

So, back to "my" paradigm, which you, and others, will likely reject automatically, simply because I'm looking at what I believe to be a forest, while in my opinion, others may be concentrating quite hard on a particular tree.

Al Gore. Really, this guy has to be the elephant in the living room!

I know, you have already made your position clear, that unless an argument is couched in "scientific" garb, you have no interest or respect for it. I guess that's not such a rare thing these days, and there is a "noble" sound perhaps to such a notion (although I personally think the idea is naive).

Al Gore is one of them. I'm not sure anyone who knows who he married, where he came from, what he has done, would argue that he is anything but one of the very elite few. This isn't Jimmy Carter we're talking about, even if Gore only made it to Vice-President.

The point is, we might not even be talking about ANY of this, if the whole damn thing had not been sanctioned, from on-high. This should give us all pause, but if nothing else, it should at least validate my "third" approach to the issue.

Is it not legitimate to at least consider these "other" factors? Again, the science we think we know, that which we "accept", does not happen in a vacuum. There is a tremendous amount of context too, but that is a huge can of worms, and too much for this humble thread I'm afraid.

I can understand why my approach will likely always be unpopular. It really questions "too much" in a way. We're simply not used to it, our conditioning, from infancy, through schooling, peer pressure, etc. I guess we do have to pick our battles, and when the choice (in my case), literally amounts to an entire "war", it is enough to send most back to the relative safety of comfort zones. And that which we have already invested so much time into, can remain comfortable for years.

Well, I hope some of my arrogance was toned down some, I guess many of us have this problem here on ATS!

JR

Yeah I'm really drowning here. Quick! NoHierarchy, mbkennelAristophrenia, CObzz, melatonin, somebody!

True, I am massively outnumbered, and to be honest, I would have probably stopped replying a long time ago, if I wasn't constantly getting called "stupid", dogmatically being told to "shut up" and repeatedly getting called a "denier" on so many occasions I couldn't count them on all my fingers and toes. I haven't once directed any sort of insults at any of you personally throughout the entire course of this discussion, and yet you see it fit to relentlessly beat me into the ground with intimidating and bulling behaviour. Why?

Jo Nova altered to deliberately deceive people like you

The graph is an exact replica of the one that appears in Chapter 8, page 631 of the AR4 report. There has been no alterations to it. I posted a link to the AR4 report and even told you which page it was on. The graphs are exactly the same.

(hint: because you're delusional).

Yes, I know, I'm delusional. No need to keep repeating it. You've told me enough times now.

But of course NONE of this apparently matters, because some wishy washy concerns over a tropospheric hot spot are enough to just flush every one of these papers and the hundreds of others like them right down the toilet.

The hotspot is the signature of positive feedback. It is not a wishy-washy concern. You linked me to Real Climate a post ago, which essentially claimed that Sherwood and Santer have found the hotspot, but I explained to you that Sherwood threw out 20 years of thermometer measurements because they failed to show greater warming in the troposphere than at the surface. This is what Sherwood says:

"Despite these attempts, most analyses of radiosondes continue to show less warming of the tropical troposphere since 1979 than reported at the surface." Allan & Sherwood -- Warming Maximum in the Tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds.

So, ingeniously, Sherwood decided to measure the temperature by wind-gauge instead and simply threw out 20 years of thermometer readings. As for Santer, the statistical counterargument is at Climate Audit. Santer simply claims the hotspot is hidden in the "noise", he hasn't actually found it, despite putting in a superhuman effort to do so. Once again, the hotspot underlies the whole AGW theory. Without the hotspot there is major amplification from water vapour and there is no catastrophic warming.

And yes a hotspot is just indicative of any surface warming. Water vapour particles don't care how they're being warmed, or if humans are causing it. How much that "hot spot" shows up in a model simply depends on how strong you decide to make the variables. The GISS model for a 2% increase in Solar radiation for example looks like this.

I don't deny that a hotspot can be visible under any warming, but the PCM models tell us that the hotspot is only induced by greenhouse gases. If you have a problem with it, don't have a go at me, get in contact with the CCSP who presents the information. What matters to everyone on Earth though is that the hotspot is not detectable with 20 years of radiosonde and satellite observations that Sherwood and even the IPCC admits in AR4. That's effectively game over in their own publications.

"The range (due to different data sets) of the global mean tropospheric temperature trend since 1979 is 0.12°C to 0.19°C per decade based on satellite-based estimates (Chapter 3) compared to a range of 0.16°C to 0.18°C per decade for the global surface warming." -- AR4

But of course NONE of this apparently matters

Science isn't about how many papers you can count. Science isn't done by consensus. All that matters in science is reproducible results. It only takes one paper to prove a theory wrong.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by Nathan-D]

Originally posted by broli
Some people are really closed minded. You can do with data whatever you like but the fact remains is that there could be a million unknown things causing this global warming having nothing to do with man.

Unlike scientists like you to believe the earth's core and let alone its dynamics is not a known fact, it's all theory. God knows how this all interacts with the cosmos and especially sun's magnetic fields or other unknowns. People are concentrating on heat coming from the outside, but have you considered that the earth might be warming from the inside out? Perhaps it's something as ridiculously simple as an eddy current effect, where intense magnetic field changes cause a "current" change in the earth's core which results in heat.

The people who classify anything as 'fact' are people with a hidden agenda. And it's no more secret that this whole man made global warming bull# is one big con.

Either prove YOUR theories, or stop pretending you JUST KNOW that global warming is a hoax. As if you can trust your gut on a complex field of science after being purposely misinformed by denialist propaganda? There is NO evidence of your claims, otherwise scientists (specifically geologists) would ABSOLUTELY be talking about Geogenic Global Warming rather than Anthropogenic.

It is a FACT that the Earth revolves around the sun. Whoops... guess I have a shadowy agenda to enslave humanity now...

You need to WAKE UP. Humanity is ALREADY enslaved in many ways, we have been for 10,000 years. If you don't trust thousands of reputable scientists, then fine I can't help that, but please do not take a position on the science if you don't understand it. Most scientists are in search of the truth like the rest of us... difference is they actually go out in the world and RESEARCH/EXPERIMENT through the lens of rigorous scientific method. The vast majority of them have NO REASON to lie to the world, nor would they even get away with it for very long if they did. In FACT, the liars in the global warming debate who HAVE proven to have (financial) reasons to do so are the DENIERS! Time and time again this has been proven, yet you faithful followers of AGW denial keep plugging your ears and finding a way to rationalize it (but it can't be, it's glaringly corrupt). Anthropogenic global warming is so damn undeniable that it takes LOTS of money, propaganda, and control of the media to induce enough fear, paranoia, hate, and disinformation to make people doubt and even deny the actual truth/science.

Originally posted by Nathan-D
The hotspot is the signature of posistive feedback. It is not a wishy-washy concern. You linked me to Real Climate a post ago, which essentially claimed that Sherwood and Santer have found the hotspot, but I explained to you that Sherwood threw out 20 years of thermometer measurements because they failed to show greater warming in the troposphere than at the surface. This is what Sherwood says:

"Despite these attempts, most analyses of radiosondes continue to show less warming of the tropical troposphere since 1979 than reported at the surface." Allan & Sherwood -- Warming Maximum in the Tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds.

So, ingeniously, Sherwood decided to measure the temperature by wind-gauge instead and simply threw out 20 years of thermometer readings. As for Santer, the statistical counterargument is at Climate Audit.

Radiosonde temperature measures are very unreliable for various reasons. This has been explained to you. For example, one major issue is that of solar heating.

The higher the balloon goes, the more it can be affected by direct solar heating. That is not what is supposed to be measured. Last month when we first discussed this, you used the CCSP report as a major source in your argument. But you never really read it, no? Just cherrypicked the issues you thought supported your position (even though I showed you that the report suggested otherwise). Well, it outlines in detail why radiosondes are a really crap for trend analysis. Just a snippet:

The largest discontinuities appear to be related to solar heating of the temperature sensor and changes in design and/or data adjustments intended to deal with this problem. These discontinuities have greatest impact at stratospheric levels (the stratosphere’s lower boundary is ~16 km in the tropics, dropping to < 10 km in the high latitudes, Figure 2.2), where direct sunlight can cause radiosonde-measured temperatures to rise several ºC above ambient temperatures. For example, when Australia and U.S. stations changed instrumentation to Vaisala RS-80, processed stratospheric temperatures shifted downward by 1 to 3ºC (Parker et al., 1997, Christy et al., 2003).

CCSP (2006, Ch2, p33)

Using wind-shear measurements overcomes these issues - it most certainly is an ingenuous approach (they are actually sourced from radiosondes). The problem here is that we can't go back 50 years and use the newer better-designed radiosondes, lol. The raw temperature measures are highly unreliable.

Now you present Paltridge's article. He decided to use one set of radiosonde reanalyses (by jebus, a model!) to make inferences about long-term trends. We already knew in 2006 the data is questionable. Moreover, the warning was clear about such use:

Reanalysis problems that influence temperature trend calculations arise from changes over time in (a) radiosonde and satellite data coverage, (b) radiosonde biases (or in the corrections applied to compensate for these biases), (c) the effectiveness of the bias corrections applied to satellite data and (d) the propagation of errors due to an imprecise formulation of physical processes in the models. For example, since few data exist for the Southern Hemisphere before 1979, temperatures were determined mainly by model forecasts; a cold model bias (in ERA-40, for example) then produces a spurious warming trend when real data become available. Indirect effects may also arise from changes in the biases of other fields, such as humidity and clouds, which affect the model temperature (Andrae et al., 2004; Simmons et al., 2004,
Bengtsson et al. 2004.).

CCSP (2006, Ch2, p36)

And the same poor relaibility can be applied to humidity measures. As a very recent review by Sherwood highlights:

Paltridge et al. [2009] examined trends in reanalysis data from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) over 1973 to 2007, reporting downward trends above 850 hPa in the tropics and southern midlatitudes and at altitudes above 600 hPa in the northern midlatitudes. However, this result had already been reported by Chen et al. [2008] who also noted nearly opposite results in the ERA-40 reanalysis. Numerous studies have concluded that reanalysis data are easily corrupted by time varying biases and therefore not useful for trend analysis [see CCSP, 2006]. Each of the principal observational systems (HIRS and radiosondes) that went into these reanalyses shows consistently upward trends.

Sherwood et al. (2010)

I wonder why Paltridge used the NCEP reanalyses rather than the ERA-40, or even just the system data? lol

[edit on 15-8-2010 by melatonin]

Radiosonde temperature measures are very unreliable for various reasons. This has been explained to you. For example, one major issue is that of solar heating.

The higher the balloon goes, the more it can be affected by direct solar heating. That is not what is supposed to be measured. Last month when we first discussed this, you used the CCSP report as a major source in your argument. But you never really read it, no? Just cherrypicked the issues you thought supported your position (even though I showed you that the report suggested otherwise). Well, it outlines in detail why radiosondes are a really crap for trend analysis. Just a snippet

The CCSP and IPCC aren't exactly going to trumpet about how badly their predictions have been. They'd lose funding if they were to say that carbon wasn't an immediate threat. As I explained to you in our previous discussion, ad nauseam, thermometers are specifically designed to measure temperature; nobody has ever, in history, measured the temperature by windshear, apart from one person, and that's Sherwood. It's sheer-madness (see what I did there?). AGW proponents wail about the so-called 'uncertainties' in thermometers but they think that windshear has no uncertainties whatsoever, even though it's never been used to measure temperature before. Ridiculous? Much. Besides, the UAH and RSS satellite data are both in substantial agreement with the radiosonde data that you dismiss.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by Nathan-D]

I know this wasn't addressed to me, and sorry for butting in, but I'd like to respond myself...

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
In the context of what has been brought up, that is, "Big Oil" seemingly funding both sides of the AGW "debate", I think that we might be more careful with our terms.

Please provide proof of this. Also... illustrate HOW that would even make sense for big oil to fund both sides of the DEBATE. From what I've learned, they CREATED the debate amongst politicians and the populace, but the majority of the SCIENTIFIC debate essentially ended decades ago. Scientists indeed DID rigorously question and doubt anthropogenic global warming at first, but the evidence came to prove its merit/truth as a theory.

Me included. Obviously you're right about coal being a fossil fuel. It has all the characteristics you would expect, no problem. As for oil however, it's a different story. Oil perhaps can be a "fossil" fuel, but it's usually not. It seems that the vast majority of oil in the world is in fact abiotic. There is lots to this, you might Google it for more info, but it's one of the reasons that I find "Peak Oil" to be yet another lie pumped out by Big Oil. Oil is not running out, not by a long shot.

Anyway, in regards to oil, I personally think that continuing to use the term "fossil fuel" only helps push along the Big Oil agenda. I prefer not to be part of that myself, at least to the extent possible.

I've researched the Abiotic Oil theory and right off the bat it is quite obvious that it's not well-supported or widely acknowledged except by a handful of Ukrainian/Russian scientists. The hard evidence is lacking for it as well. Of course a small amount of Abiotic hydrocarbons exist... but nowhere near the amout that is Biotic. Here are a few links debunking some Abiogenic oil myths, the bottom 4 of which are written by geologists:

www.energybulletin.net...
www.fromthewilderness.com...
www.fromthewilderness.com...
www.fromthewilderness.com...
www.fromthewilderness.com...

While I don't want to engage in a debate about Peak Oil versus Abiotic oil... I do want to point out that while in the SHORT-term peak oil may drive oil prices higher, ultimately Peak Oil is a SERIOUS THREAT to oil companies who face literal extinction of their industry due to depletion of their main resource. If anything, Peak Oil seems to spurn an ABANDONMENT of fossil fuels... which of course is not good news for the fossil fuel industry. Yet another reason why I see many misinformed talking heads (largely right-wing/industrialist/capitalist/neo-con) latching onto Abiogenic oil (along with denial of AGW) in order to support a virtually infinite continuation of fossil fuel use. The right-wing and their industry-friendly think-tanks obviously have a long/intiminate history with the fossil fuel industry, essentially supporting anything that allows them to do business as usual and reap greater profits/expansion. The simple fact is... oil IS running out, the wells/deposits are NOT being replenished by abiotic oil, and we need to make a RAPID transition away from fossil fuels no matter what. So... if you truly want to avoid pushing along the Big Oil agenda, then you may actually want to rethink your support for the Abiotic oil argument.

As far as the term "denier" is concerned, yes, it's a rather blatant propagandist term, and in the interests of fairness, perhaps both "sides" of the debate should attempt to use more accurate, and less inflammatory terms.

You're is sort of coming from left-field with this and I'm not sure why. However... I really don't see how the term "denier" is propagandistic or even inflammatory. It seems quite an accurate term that serves BEST to describe those who disbelieve in AGW. To disbelieve is to deny the existence of something... "deny" is a fairly standard/innocuous word that flows easily in conversation about global warming. Thus, those who deny the scientific consensus on global warming are called "global warming deniers" or just "deniers" for expediency. Of course some people USE the word in inflammatory ways sometimes... but this will happen no matter what word/phrase you use, thus changing the language is a waste of time.

Each of us may suffer from the same thing. Reality may not correspond to our beliefs, but worse, it could be a real "foundational" problem, and arguing about specifics is almost premature, if the foundation is too faulty.

Sure this happens with just about everyone at some point. However, your notion that AGW is based on flighty faith in unsound scientific foundations is just plain wrong. Time and time again it has been demonstrated (even in this thread) that the scientific/data foundations supporting the theory of AGW are quite strong and widely held/acknowledged. What has also been demonstrated is that the arguments which attempt to poke holes in the theory of AGW tend to be weak, false, contradictory, exaggerated, misinformed, and/or conflicted by corrupt ties/motives. THAT is the reality/world-view from which AGW proponents come from, and being somebody who RELIGIOUSLY QUESTIONS EVERYTHING (seriously, even to my own detriment) I can say that such a reality has stood the test of rigorous doubt/analysis with flying colors.

And so back to the idea that propaganda is deep within this "debate". Notice, I chose to "assume" that there is indeed a "debate", in this case. If you read what others have posted, they "deny" there is a "real" debate at all. They will tell you the whole matter has been settled, by the best and brightest minds, etc.

Well... in essence, YES it has been settled by the best and brightest minds in climatology and related fields. Also, the scientific debate (or discussion, at this point in the field) is very obviously separated from the public/political debate (much of which isn't rooted in sound/hard science or scientific minds). Please read for an interesting and informative history of the scientific debate and eventual acceptance of AGW:

www.aip.org...

...CONTINUED-->

...CONTINUED-->

Abortion. Oh yes, terribly controversial. Let's imagine we have run into a "protest" on a sidewalk somewhere, and we're looking at the signs they're carrying. One says, "Pro Life!". Another says, "Pro Death!", and even has a skull and crossbones too! Yet another says, "Pro Choice!" Perhaps there are coat-hangers, and on and on. Do you see what I'm getting at? Certainly, if an "alien" from "out there" came upon the scene, they would be hard-pressed to figure out what the heck anyone was fighting about.

WOULD an alien be hard-pressed to figure out what we fight about? Would they even really care?
Honestly, if "they" had any grasp on our society they'd know that we're a very numerous species under the control of centralized governments as well as various other methods of social control/order/conduct (not necessarily bad or good). Our governments essentially dictate what we can/can't do via laws and subsequent law enforcement. So if an alien saw an abortion protest, it might conclude that it had to do with changing certain laws or perhaps social customs/practices of a society. In the most basic sense they'd recognize it as an emotion-filled argument over conflicts of lifestyle/ethics. But since we're just speculating we have NO IDEA what an actual alien race would be capable of learning/understanding from such a circumstance nor do we know if they'd even be interested.

Back to AGW. The term "denier", as you probably know, has a bit of history. In today's world, it's most volatile application has to do with the Holocaust. As you probably know, since you are from Australia, being a "denier" in the case of the official Holocaust story, can get you into trouble. You can be kicked out of various countries, even be put in jail, sometimes for years!

My point here isn't to bring up 60 year old history, but to clear the air, at least a bit. Yes, using the term "denier" is using a propagandist term. And so is something like "Warmer" on the other side. Using these terms is obviously quite popular, but neither is scientific.

The way people use the term "denier" in regards to the Holocaust is more specific, they will say "Holocaust denier" just as with the issue of global warming (i.e. "global warming denier"). There is not typically any implication that deniers of global warming are also Holocaust deniers or even that they're anywhere near as offensive (though some have made the connection, admittedly). However, the implications of global warming denial, while not as OFFENSIVE, may actually be WORSE in actual consequences than Holocaust denial, depending of course on the results of such denial. That of course is arguable, and I'm not going to argue either way as it is an unneccessary can of worms. I don't believe that calling someone a "warmer" is offensive... it seems harmless and mostly silly/weak to me when I hear it (essentially what I percieve as a feeble attempt at creating a derogatory word for "warmers"). Some may be offended by it... I can't really speak for them. Regardless though, I think the use of "denier" is largely a non-issue and actually proves more accurate than propagandistic/unfair.

Since you are on one side of the fence so firmly, you may be perhaps irritated that anyone would suggest that a word like "denier" is propagandistic. In your example, you chose the deluded smoker, in denial. Not the best example in my opinion, most smokers don't "deny" that smoking is bad for their health, although some may deny that it is a problem for them personally.

I think the smoking denier reference was to those (especially in the early days) who actively denied that smoking presents health risks. There are certainly people (even if a small minority) to this day who deny the harmful effects of cigarettes, and to be honest I think they SHOULD be questioned and even shamed to an extent.

Either way, it is "insulting" precisely because it makes an issue "personal". Of course, you may feel that all the facts are solidly on your side, no problem, firm belief seems to be here to stay when it comes to some issues. But we should all concede that we need not get personal, or resort to ad homs, etc. By the time we succumb to the temptation to belittle someone, most of the time, we're really saying more about ourselves. I know, I'm asking for it, with my small attempt to raise things up, after so much water under the bridge already.

As for me, I don't mind being called a "denier". Who cares? It really says more about the person using the term, and probably not much about the one it's casually thrown at.

I can see why the word "denier" can be used to lump certain people together and subsequently marginalize them. Of course such use of labels can assist marginalization in any circumstance. However, I still believe that it is and can largely be used to describe those who disbelieve AGW in an innocuous and accurate manner. We cannot simply act as if "deniers" don't exist... it's an accurate term to describe a real thing, and while at times used with contempt, it's not an inherently unacceptable or insulting term. If you feel no shame in being a denier then wear the name proudly. Personally I wear the name "anarchist" proudly where some (especially in the media) use the word as having negative connotations. I accept my beliefs, I'm proud and unapologetic about them. If I am proven wrong or decide to I'll abandon it, but for the time being it is part of my worldview and accepted truth. By the same token, if we are all seekers of truth (which I assume we are) then we must be willing to wear truth proudly and happily discard what proves false. If AGW denial proves true to you, wear it, if it proves false, toss it out.

...CONTINUED-->

...CONTINUED-->

Personally, I think it's still too early to dismiss the possibility that AGW may be occurring. As I've said before, I doubt it, but at the risk of irritating the true believers further, I doubt AGW not so much for any particular "scientific" reasons, but because my paradigm is admittedly skewed to questioning the "official" or accepted. I have gone down my path, and I refuse to trust our masters. Others do not accept that TPTB have as much power, as I have come to believe they have. We will most certainly draw different conclusions, even if we evaluate the exact same data.

I respect that you question 'official' stories as well as the accepted/assumed notions and structures of society. I highly value that trait both in myself and others. And TRUST ME, as I stated earlier in this reply, I question things RELIGIOUSLY, I am radically different from most people in my belief system and the things I study, follow, and even develop hobbies/interests in. As we all probably know, this DOES NOT make it easier to function or participate in our society. However, above and beyond a trait of questioning things comes my adherence to ultimate truths no matter where they lead. So essentially if I find it true that a Republican is passing a bill that I actually agree with (perhaps Ron Paul) I will support that, if Kanye West releases a track that I find to actually sound good I'll (even begrudgingly) admit to liking it. While things that are radical/underground appeal to me most, I cannot deny myself truths that exist in more mainstream portions of society. The mainstream NEEDS to be questioned, official stories NEED to be questioned, but NOT to the point that we lose sight of the truth. We must also EQUALLY question things that are NOT mainstream or supportive of the system. Question EVERYTHING but accept truth when you find it. The truth, I've found, can exist both in the highest levels of power/wealth/mainstream as well as the deepest points of independent, underground, and radical anything. Hold onto the good, the true, and toss the bad and false.

I refuse to trust our "masters" and TPTB as well, but that doesn't mean that they're ALL in on some giant conspiracy and that EVERYTHING they say and support is wrong. They're just people too, stuck in the SAME system we are (except with markedly more power/benefits)... and while many have agendas, sometimes they legitimately want to do and even end up DOING the right thing. We ALL have agendas, but not necessarily power to enact them. By the same token, TPTB ALL have an agenda, but not ALL of them are shadowy/corrupt. But beyond all that... TPTB should NOT be construed with the world of reputable science and scientists. Certainly scientists and scientific institutions are involved in the highest levels of our society, as well as for negative ends, HOWEVER, the realm of science and scientific study is largely geared to be INDEPENDENT of agendas, and even when not in the general FOCUS of study then at least in the purity of the actual research/conclusions. There is absolutely NO evidence that I've seen that there is or even COULD POSSIBLY BE a conspiracy amongst thousands of respected and serious scientists to create a hoax out of global warming and falsely attribute it to human actions. There's a line that divides healthy skepticism and insane paranoia and I absolutely prefer the former which leads me to soberly accept that AGW is real, presents a dire threat, and needs to be addressed immediately and radically. I DON'T, however, believe that addressing it has to lead to oppressive measures on the populace, nor to further conflicts of interest with the fossil fuel industry. In fact, I think the BEST goals are the ones that call for an abandonment of fossil fuels and all the environmental destruction, politico-economic corruption, and draconian control measures that comes with it. A future of free, sustainable, renewable, eco-friendly, and decentralized/egalitarian societies is the best solution I see for a whole RANGE of problems we face. How we get there is the discussion I'm most interested in.

Sorry for the HUGE response! But I had to address all the points thoroughly. 8)

[edit on 15-8-2010 by NoHierarchy]

reply to post by NoHierarchy


-----------------------------------------
Originally posted by JR MacBeth
In the context of what has been brought up, that is, "Big Oil" seemingly funding both sides of the AGW "debate", I think that we might be more careful with our terms.

Please provide proof of this. Also... illustrate HOW that would even make sense for big oil to fund both sides of the DEBATE.

"Proof"? You probably know how these guys work, there may not be as much as we would like, but I'm glad you at least acknowledge Big Oil's early role on both sides of this. Here's a link (hope it works, I'm not so computer saavy) showing that some of the infamous leaked emails (which mc_squared provided a link to by the way), do in fact involve Big Oil...

CRU looks to Big Oil

--------
As far as the term "denier" is concerned, yes, it's a rather blatant propagandist term, and in the interests of fairness, perhaps both "sides" of the debate should attempt to use more accurate, and less inflammatory terms.

You're is sort of coming from left-field with this and I'm not sure why. However... I really don't see how the term "denier" is propagandistic or even inflammatory.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you're totally making my point.

----------------------
Originally posted by JR MacBeth
Abortion. Oh yes, terribly controversial. Let's imagine we have run into a "protest" on a sidewalk somewhere, and we're looking at the signs they're carrying. One says, "Pro Life!". Another says, "Pro Death!", and even has a skull and crossbones too! Yet another says, "Pro Choice!" Perhaps there are coat-hangers, and on and on. Do you see what I'm getting at? Certainly, if an "alien" from "out there" came upon the scene, they would be hard-pressed to figure out what the heck anyone was fighting about.

WOULD an alien be hard-pressed to figure out what we fight about? Would they even really care?

Sorry, you completely missed the point, again, which kinda proves my point. It really does seem that few people have the self-awareness to even realize how immersed they are in the political.

Personally I wear the name "anarchist" proudly...

Uh, well thanks, but this isn't helping, in my opinion.

I respect that you question 'official' stories as well as the accepted/assumed notions...

Thanks. I appreciate that, as well as your very thoughtful response. But, a paradigm shift is what would be necessary to really register any movement.

I refuse to trust our "masters" and TPTB as well, but that doesn't mean that they're ALL in on some giant conspiracy and that EVERYTHING they say and support is wrong.

OK, that's good I think. But let's look at this. No one is saying that "everything" they say is necessarily wrong. What I do wish to say is that what we are experiencing, is a real reflection of where they are coming from.

Let me explain. You feel that Global Warning, caused by humans, is something to fight about. Not a criticism, perhaps a compliment, that you actually give a darn. BUT, if our masters had any inkling that such a thing were true, can we ask, what would they be doing?

Imagine you are a wealthy noble. Your family goes back for generations, and you look out on to an "empire", and really nothing but a bright future, for you, and your posterity. At some point, you become aware that ALL of it is in serious jeopardy! Scientists, these vile "independents", have found something, and within as few as just ten years, perhaps twenty, everything your august ancestors have accomplished, may come to naught.

What would you DO? Really? If you had wealth, and power, and connections, with many of the other multi-generational patrician families, what would you do?

Well, you would martial all your resources, as well as those you controlled, which, conveniently, are virtually those of the entire world! You could manipulate governments, tap into big budgets, etc. But, one thing is certain, "if" you were convinced that the world could soon be coming to a crashing halt, you would DO something about it!

Now let's stop. ARE they doing something about it? Really? No. They're really NOT doing much, at all! The next phase of this whole unhappy affair seems to involves skimming incredible amounts of global productivity off the sheeple, as the global carbon taxes kick in. This is the reality.

Please realize, the elite have far more resources, and "real" info at their disposal, than we could ever hope to have. As a consequence, they are in a unique position to make the BEST possible decision, when it comes to the retention of their vast power.

THIS, should be the foundation of ANY realistic world-view. But, alas, it is not, for the average person. The average person listens to their politicians. They tune in to the media (owned completely, by "them"...). Some, delude themselves with scientistic rationales, never suspecting that TPTB have indeed achieved a level of control that would boggle their minds!

How many centuries after Machiavelli first advised his Prince, do we dare to indulge in notions that we have anything to do with this damn matrix?!

Yes, that's where I'm coming from. And so, I can quite reasonably "relax", when it comes to the sky-is-falling AGW, and overpopulation propaganda, because my paradigm already takes into account the FACT, that TPTB are WAY ahead of what they have allowed us to discuss, or believe.

I realize this is terribly controversial. I will at this point recommend, for those inclined, a true search for a really radical paradigm shift. Get away from "their" stranglehold on what we are all supposed to agree on, when it comes to "science".

I don't often do this, but I will recommend looking up another fellow ATS member, "Protoplasmic Traveler" at this point. No, I don't personally endorse his entire world-view, but I do agree with him on quite a bit. Do all roads "lead to Rome"? Decide for yourselves, but do come back to this important issue when you're done. Look at it again, with new eyes. Realize that what you see, what you hear, and even, what you think, has mostly been scripted and CONTROLLED, long ago. And then, act accordingly.

Originally posted by broli
Some people are really closed minded. You can do with data whatever you like but the fact remains is that there could be a million unknown things causing this global warming having nothing to do with man.

Yes, they could be a million unknown caviling gods who all decide to create enhanced long wave emissivity in the atmosphere exactly as the laws of physics predict.

Unlike scientists like you to believe the earth's core and let alone its dynamics is not a known fact, it's all theory. God knows how this all interacts with the cosmos and especially sun's magnetic fields or other unknowns. People are concentrating on heat coming from the outside, but have you considered that the earth might be warming from the inside out? Perhaps it's something as ridiculously simple as an eddy current effect, where intense magnetic field changes cause a "current" change in the earth's core which results in heat.

Fascinating. How would this magic fire heat result in the oceans starting to heat from top down, as observations say, instead of bottom up? Or how would it make the heating in polar regions more than in tropical, more at night than in day, and more in winter than in summer? And why would it cause the stratosphere to cool?

Make sure to quantitatively account for the heat capacity of the crust and mantle in your explanation.

Lesson: modern science does NOT know nothing about the planet. You are reading this text thanks to the persistent development of a hundred fifty years of science and engineering, which have discovered facts about how the world works. Humans do not know everything, but they certainly do not know nothing. Stringing together scienceynessish star trek pseudojargon is fine for a science fiction episode, but actually worse than useless in real life if anybody thinks that a massively ill-informed delusion is reason to retain a real-life skepticism of modern scientific results.

The people who classify anything as 'fact' are people with a hidden agenda.

Their---my---agenda is not hidden. Scientists have been looking at this (because the physical effect has been known for generations) for decades, long, long long before there was any significant economic or political consequence.

And it's no more secret that this whole man made global warming bull# is one big con.

The global warming is real.

The global warming bull# peddled by the deniers of decades of planetary science---that's the bull#.

I'm "pro global warming" the way a microbiologist is "pro anthrax" when they get very upset about somebody's plan to spray the whole bleeping planet with spores!!!! (and then face a massive denialist and obfuscatory program about firmly known science & medicine from political & industries who find it profitable to do it).

[edit on 15-8-2010 by mbkennel]

[edit on 15-8-2010 by mbkennel]

Imagine you are a wealthy noble. Your family goes back for generations, and you look out on to an "empire", and really nothing but a bright future, for you, and your posterity. At some point, you become aware that ALL of it is in serious jeopardy! Scientists, these vile "independents", have found something, and within as few as just ten years, perhaps twenty, everything your august ancestors have accomplished, may come to naught.

What would you DO? Really? If you had wealth, and power, and connections, with many of the other multi-generational patrician families, what would you do?

Well, you would martial all your resources, as well as those you controlled, which, conveniently, are virtually those of the entire world! You could manipulate governments, tap into big budgets, etc. But, one thing is certain, "if" you were convinced that the world could soon be coming to a crashing halt, you would DO something about it!

Funny, the wealthy nobles of the Maya (or Inca) empires which collapsed due to local climate changes---what did they do to stop the collapse?

Perhaps the wealthy nobles in the modern world are doing "something" about it; real estate prices in Vancouver are shooting up. They'll be able to take care of themselves. The rest of us will be really screwed, on the other hand.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by mbkennel]

Originally posted by Nathan-D
The CCSP and IPCC aren't exactly going to trumpet about how badly their predictions have been. They'd lose funding if they were to say that carbon wasn't an immediate threat. As I explained to you in our previous discussion, ad nauseam, thermometers are specifically designed to measure temperature; nobody has ever, in history, measured the temperature by windshear, apart from one person, and that's Sherwood. It's sheer-madness (see what I did there?). AGW proponents wail about the so-called 'uncertainties' in thermometers but they think that windshear has no uncertainties whatsoever, even though it's never been used to measure temperature before. Ridiculous? Much. Besides, the UAH and RSS satellite data are both in substantial agreement with the radiosonde data that you dismiss.

I actually think it's more a case of deniers whining about uncertainties in thermometers. I wonder if the Russians have their weather stations sited next to air conditioning units

So, three issues you raise:

1. Thermometers are designed to measure temperature. But that doesn't inherently mean they are reliable. How you use them is pretty important. I'd be surprised if you'd ever used a thermometer in science, otherwise you'd know they at the minimum need calibration.

2. The satellite data itself doesn't agree, lol. McKitrick and McIntyre have a new paper in press that even shows they are highly significant different. There are newer series being developed which attempt to fix issues such as diurnal drift (e.g., Zou's STAR) and resolve the differences in MSU processing between UAH and RSS (STAR suggests RSS is more reliable). Furthermore, I haven't dismissed radiosonde data: some are more reliable than others (due to attempts to account for heterogeneity; e.g., see McCarthy et al., 2009)

3. I never suggested that the wind-shear has no uncertainties, and I doubt anyone else has either (in fact, Allen & Sherwood state they do clearly enough). That's just your strawman. Wind-shear removes some elements of uncertainty from radiosonde measures. They still suffer many of the same issues as the temperature measures - as I noted, they are derived from the same radiosondes and so suffer elements of heterogeneity.

Both the satellite and radiosonde data needs to be used with care. Neither was designed for long-term trend analysis, and both need extensive processing to remove biases to present coherent trend data.

As I explained to you in our previous discussion, ad nauseam, thermometers are specifically designed to measure temperature; nobody has ever, in history, measured the temperature by windshear, apart from one person, and that's Sherwood. It's sheer-madness (see what I did there?).

And you know this how? By pulling it out your ass?

Neiman, Paul J., M. A. Shapiro, 1989: Retrieving Horizontal Temperature Gradients and Advections from Single-Station Wind Profiler Observations. Wea. Forecasting, 4, 222-233

doi: 10.1175/1520-0434(1989)0042.0.CO;2
Retrieving Horizontal Temperature Gradients and Advections from Single-Station Wind Profiler Observations

Paul J. Neiman
Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado/NOAA, 4, Boulder, Colorado

M. A. Shapiro
NOAA/ERL/Wave Propagation Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado

Abstract
Vertical wind shears measured by the Plattevilie, Colorado wind profiler were used in conjunction with the geostrophic thermal wind equation to retrieve the horizontal thermal gradients and associated advections for a case involving an upper-tropospheric jet stream/frontal zone on 23–24 November 1986. The profiler-retrieved thermal gradients and advections and their evolutions compared favorably with those observed by the operational rawinsonde network. The retrieval of horizontal temperature gradients by a single wind profiler is generally effective in quasi-balanced flow regimes, but becomes less reliable in flow regimes dominated by nonbalanced gravity wave activity. In quasi-balanced flow regimes this simple thermal retrieval technique can aid the operational community by monitoring baroclinic features and associated temperature advections on an hourly basis, rather than on a 12-hourly basis currently available through the operational rawinsonde network.

And it took me 10 minutes to find studies using the thermal wind equation to measure temperature going back to 1967. Indeed, the equation is used extensively in planetary science (it's a fundamental equation in fluid dynamics).



[edit on 16-8-2010 by melatonin]

hermometers are designed to measure temperature. But that doesn't inherently mean they are reliable. How you use them is pretty important. I'd be surprised if you'd ever used a thermometer in science, otherwise you'd know they at the minimum need calibration.

Of course calibration is needed and I'm pretty sure that radiosondes are individually calibrated to 0.1°C and the hotspot should be at least 0.6°C. I guess there's a possibility that thousands of radiosonde observations may all be egregiously flawed, a low one, but a possibility nonetheless. To believe this to be true though we have to place our confidence in measurements that convert wind-gauge to degrees Celsius. That's what all the energy economies of the world are hinging on.

2. The satellite data itself doesn't agree, lol. McKitrick and McIntyre have a new paper in press that even shows they are highly significant different. There are newer series being developed which attempt to fix issues such as diurnal drift (e.g., Zou's STAR) and resolve the differences in MSU processing between UAH and RSS (STAR suggests RSS is more reliable).

Funny you bring that up, because the models have recently been exposed by McKitrick, McIntyre, and Herman to have overestimated warming by, conservatively, a factor ranging from 2X on the ground to 4X in the mid-troposphere, (MT). As for the satellite data not being in agreement with the radiosondes, if you're talking about homogeneity, I agree, there isn't total homogeneity, and the RSS data does slightly overlap with the models predictions, but crucially, it doesn't show any amplification - it's at O°C. No hotspot = no amplification = CO2 is a harmless beneficial trace gas = planet melt-down scenario averted.

And it took me 10 minutes to find studies using the thermal wind equation to measure temperature going back to 1967. Indeed, the equation is used extensively in planetary science (it's a fundamental equation in fluid dynamics).

Do any of these studies actually convert windshear to degrees Celsius commensurably?

I never suggested that the wind-shear has no uncertainties.

I never said you did. I said "AGW proponents". At least, the ones that I've often debated. If we can't measure the temperature reliably with thermometers anymore I guess we may as well just pack up our bags and go home. Clearly we've been doing it wrong all this time.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by Nathan-D]

Originally posted by Nathan-D
Of course calibration is needed and I'm pretty sure that radiosondes are individually calibrated to 0.1°C and the hotspot should be at lest 0.6°C. I guess there's a possibility that thousands of radiosonde observations may all be egregiously flawed, a low one, but a possibility nonetheless. To believe this to be true though we have to place our confidence in measurements that covert wind-gauge to degrees Celsius. That's what all the energy economies of the world are hinging on.

You still don't get it. What we are interested in here is extracting a set of trend data from radiosondes. If we had great coverage and the same instrumentation across stations, then the issue would be fairly simple - but we don't.

What about the solar heating issue? Knowing that just changing design can lead to changes of 1-3'C in temperature readings? lol

These issues are well-known, and some studies attempt to account for them. They mostly are consistent with model projections. In contrast, you'd rather use the biased data in some silly attempt to throw out the baby and bathwater.

Funny you bring that up, because the models have recently been exposed by McKitrick, McIntyre, and Herman to have overestimated warming by, conservatively, a factor ranging from 2X on the ground to 4X in the mid-troposphere, (MT).

I doubt they will be found to have exposed much apart from their own inability to add substantially to the literature yet again.

Just read Table 1 of the paper. Even most of the individual models are significantly different from the model ensemble mean data they use!

Just think about that for a moment...lol. Their problem is in the method used to determine level of uncertainty. When the majority of the individual data points can't agree with your own summary stats you've overlooked something and made a boo-boo.

ABE: here's the sort of figure that we should see in the paper.



Blue = Models (2SE)
Red = Observations (2SE)
Purple = MMH Model ensemble mean trend (one SE)

The error bars on their model mean ensemble is way too restrictive; and much like Santer's study, using 2SE gives an appropriate test (otherwise we are even rejecting most models from the ensemble mean). But even at 2SE for their data, the error bars are way too small cf. the individual models. So again we come down to the points I've made continually to you...the possibilities are:

1. The models are the problem
2. The data is the problem
3. An amalgam of both

Likely 3. But it's entirely fair to expect the data to have real issues - they are already known to have biases, and we've been here a number of times already - the data has tended to be corrected towards the models (see the Christy UAH debacle from several years ago).

Contrariwise, the models show a wide range of outcomes - so they also need some work.

As for the satellite data not being in agreement with the radiosondes, if you're talking about homogeneity, I agree, there isn't total homogeneity, and the RSS data does slightly overlap with the models predictions, but crucially, it doesn't show any amplification - it's at O°C. No hotspot = no amplification = CO2 is a harmless beneficial trace gas = planet melt-down scenario averted.

You are joking? The hotspot is not a specific consequence of CO2. That is a pure non-sequitor. You've had this outlined twice to you now - once by myself in t'other thread and by someone in this thread: it is a result of the lapse rate and a consequence of all form of warming.

Again, the satellite data has almost as many issues as the radiosonde data (but not quite). When we have two groups using the same raw data measuring the same natural phenomena, but which diverge substantially at important points, I think we can question how much weight to put on that actual data. Both these forms of data need real work.

Do any of these studies actually convert windshear to degrees Celsius commensurably?

lol, the conversion is just a simple equation - the thermal wind equation. The answer to your question is in the abstract I posted.

I never said you did. I said "AGW proponents". At least, the ones that I've often debated. If we can't measure the temperature reliably with thermometers anymore I guess we may as well just pack up our bags and go home. Clearly we've been doing it wrong all this time.

Oh, I see. It's those pesky 'AGW proponents' from your past.

And, again with the strawman. All measures have to be assessed for accuracy and precision. It's one of the first things I was taught in further education all those years ago!

Balloons launched into the atmosphere and satellites measuring radiance aren't exactly sticking a thermometer up someone's butt (or even measuring at a surface weather station).

[edit on 16-8-2010 by melatonin]

reply to post by Nathan-D

True, I am massively outnumbered

Actually if you look around this forum you'll see you're in the vast majority. The overwhelming consensus around ATS is that global warming:

- is a big fat hoax invented by Al Gore sometime around 2005
- used to be called global warming but then "they" (whoever that is) changed it to climate change when it got cold later
- is clearly all just a natural cycle, because "there's so many things science doesn't even know about stuff"
- is all about the money and enslaving us. (This is apparently why oil campanies and right wing neo con fundamentalists are fighting so hard to deny it - because these people truly care about us and our freedom, instead of money - phew!)

And the only reason you are outnumbered at this point is because the only people who stick around to page 12 of any thread on ATS are the ones who actually have an attention span. All the ones who do nothing but look for sensationalist headlines they can star & flag and then leave their two-cent, one-line, zero-substance comment have long gone to bed by now. So all you have left are the ones who actually truly care and are well-read and have something important they can actually contribute to the subject.

And guess what - the majority of these people happen to believe in AGW. Crazy huh!


Now speaking of crazy...

I haven't once directed any sort of insults at any of you personally throughout the entire course of this discussion, and yet you see it fit to relentlessly beat me into the ground with intimidating and bulling behaviour. Why?

Maybe because you have a very selective memory when it comes to what's what. Have you honestly forgotten what YOU said that started this entire pissing contest in the first place:

It's obvious schools nowadays don't teach children the critical life skills of logic and deduction. Just take a look at the people on this forum. The media just repeatedly beats into their patsy heads that every scientist agrees with AGW and the ones that are left are on the fringes and paid by oil companies and they lap it up like spittle-flecked idiots.

And I'm not one to play the "well, you started it" card but gimme a break - at the very least don't go preaching about how much you've been bullied when you threw the first punch.

And while we're on this quote again: You propose the only reason we think skeptic scientists are funded by oil companies is because the media beats this apparent myth into our patsy heads huh? After all the documented PROOF I showed you in the other thread, and the links NoHierarchy has left in this one you still want to fall back on this lame excuse? Good. I'm going to show you just how much the media beats it not only into our heads - but into the skeptics scientists' own heads as well.

Here's a recent CNN discussion involving notorious denier climatologist Pat Michaels:



Go to 6:45 of this video and see for yourself. Here's the transcript:

Fareed Zakaria: Right, but people say that you're advocating also for the current petroleum based industry to stand pat, to stay as it is, and that a lot of your research is funded by these industries.

Pat Michaels: Oh no, no, no...first of all - what...what I'm saying is -

Zakaria [interrupting]: Is...is your research funded by these industries?

Michaels [shrugging it off, staring at the floor]: Not largely. [stuttering] The...the...um, fact of the matter is -

Zakaria [interrupts again]: Can I ask you what percentage of your work is funded by the petroleum industry?

Michaels: I don’t know. 40 percent? I don’t know.

So do you want to blame this one on media spin too? It came straight from the horse's mouth.

So I'm sorry, but the reason you're being called delusional is because...you are. If you're not then you're incredibly naive, because to just pretend these connections don't exist, or don't matter and that anyone who thinks they're important is the one who's brainwashed is some of the most ridiculous, hypocritically dumb logic I've ever seen.

Naivety I guess I could at least forgive, but here's why I'm leaning towards delusion:

The graph is an exact replica of the one that appears in Chapter 8, page 631 of the AR4 report.

THIS is the graph you first posted! And it's this incredible selective memory of yours that is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. I mean - who do you think you're fooling here, other than yourself?

And no this one is not an exact replica. I don't care about the fact Joanne Nova simply took a scatter chart and turned it into a line graph, that's not the issue. I'm talking about the part where she MS-painted a big "X" over future projections and claimed this part was due to the fact the IPCC "guessed" clouds and humidity amplify CO2 warming "but they don't".

Do those 20 or so papers I linked you to look like just "guesses"??

You might want to play it off as a minor issue but it's not - because like I just told you: most people on this website and all over the internet don't read the fine print, they just want the headline. They want the soundbite that tells them everything they need to know in 3 seconds or less. And obviously you can't expect them to go read 600 pages of an IPCC report, but at the same time trying to trivialize all this painstaking detail and incredible complexity into a "guess" is completely dishonest and downright manipulative.

And that's my whole point about people like Joanne Nova: they are propagandists and they know exactly what they're doing when they make things "easier to understand".

(continued below)

Because again - just look at the comments throughout this thread. How many times has someone here lambasted the scientists for "thinking they know everything"? Meanwhile anyone who actually does know anything about scientific literature knows scientists don't think they know everything, that in fact they are very careful to point this part out.

This is clearly evident in the IPCC reports themselves, where each calculation comes with uncertainty values. Every statement they make about their data comes with a disclaimer, be it good OR bad:

Increasing concentrations of the long-lived greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), halocarbons and sulphur hexafl uoride (SF6); hereinafter LLGHGs) have led to a combined RF of +2.63 [±0.26] W m–2. Their RF has a high level of scientific understanding.

The RF due to the cloud albedo effect (also referred to as first indirect or Twomey effect), in the context of liquid water clouds, is estimated to be –0.7 [–1.1, +0.4] W m–2, with a low level of scientific understanding.

(pg. 131 - and those are their italics, not mine)


But yet all the propaganda out there keeps trying to peddle this bullsh** image about how much the scientists are overhyping the problem, and lying and hiding the data that doesn't support it. If that's true then why did they include these models in the first place? Because the reality is it's clearly people like Joanne Nova who are the ones distorting and misrepresenting the data.

It would be one thing if they were keeping the scientists in check, pointing out flaws and demanding more scrutiny over whatever issues don't add up. Then they would actually be called legitimate skeptics, and they would be respected and in fact appreciated. But they're labelled deniers for a reason (and thus so is anyone who just repeats all their polemic ranting). Because they routinely take these issues and blow them completely out of proportion, cherry picking the details that suit their agenda, and then making preposterous claims about how much these things completely unravel the entire theory of man-made global warming, despite the 10,000 pieces of evidence that say they don't.

So if you want to be taken seriously and respected, and not bullied or called a denier - then stop imitating these charlatans verbatim.

Nathan-D

No hotspot = no amplification = CO2 is a harmless beneficial trace gas = planet melt-down scenario averted.

Again, to believe this you must adhere to the notion that warmer air will not absorb any more water vapor than cooler air or that water vapor has no greenhouse effect.

I say these are both false.

Which do you believe is true, and why?

[edit on 16-8-2010 by mbkennel]