Claim : "Temperatures could rise over 200 degrees"

[AngryOldGuy]

we couldn't destroy the planet even if we wanted too
the climate change wackos shouldn't be given the wrong time of day
the real crime is that the government's are able to get away with using this to further enslave us
that is the real problem but we get the government we deserve Right?

 

[Mithrae]

His employer NASA obviously disagrees. Provide evidence that Spencer has misrepresented any plot on this graph otherwise this is just smearing . . . .


Provide evidence that Spencer has personally recieved funding from Exxon to distort his work at their behest otherwise this is just more smearing

Sure, as soon as you provide equivalent evidence regarding those you have smeared - off the top of my head Wikipedia, scepticalscience.com, realclimate.com, the IPCC and some 20-plus national academies of sciences :roll:

My post above is an explanation of why I would not consider Dr. Roy Spencer to be an objective reliable source regarding other scientisists' views. As a general rule I don't approve of your frequent attack-the-source approach to debate, because ultimately it'd descend into the farce of neither side accepting anything the other offers and dismissing information simply because they don't like it (as you seemingly did regarding the source you yourself provided for CO2's logarithmic warming effect). But my comments were in response to your post implying Dr. Spencer's credentials or reliability to be excellent and specifically downplaying association with oil companies.

My actual criticism of the graph, which you have not answered beyond posting Spencer's resume, was that "it's extremely dubious that any climate models can be accurately represented by a single thin line as all of those are." Take a look at some IPCC projections for a variety of emissions scenarios, for example. Or this graphic from "a draft of the Fifth Assessment Report" of the IPCC. Note that contrary to Dr. Spencer's graph, these projections (and I suspect all serious climatologists' projections) recognise in their error margins or scope for uncertainty the variables which might not be so easily or completely accounted for. Indeed most of the observed temperature bars up to 2010 (a notable exception being 2008's remarkable low) do in fact fall within the range of those projections.

That's in stark contrast to Dr. Spencer's portrayal - perhaps because Dr. Spencer chose for his observational comparison tropical mid-troposphere temperatures, rather than surface or global averages? I really wouldn't know. I simply wanted to point out that posting that graph proved little or nothing, except perhaps to those already keen to dismiss the conclusions of most scientists.

 

[flogger]

Sure, as soon as you provide equivalent evidence regarding those you have smeared - off the top of my head Wikipedia, scepticalscience.com, realclimate.com, the IPCC and some 20-plus national academies of sciences :roll:

My post above is an explanation of why I would not consider Dr. Roy Spencer to be an objective reliable source regarding other scientisists' views. As a general rule I don't approve of your frequent attack-the-source approach to debate, because ultimately it'd descend into the farce of neither side accepting anything the other offers and dismissing information simply because they don't like it (as you seemingly did regarding the source you yourself provided for CO2's logarithmic warming effect). But my comments were in response to your post implying Dr. Spencer's credentials or reliability to be excellent and specifically downplaying association with oil companies.

My actual criticism of the graph, which you have not answered beyond posting Spencer's resume, was that "it's extremely dubious that any climate models can be accurately represented by a single thin line as all of those are." Take a look at some IPCC projections for a variety of emissions scenarios, for example. Or this graphic from "a draft of the Fifth Assessment Report" of the IPCC. Note that contrary to Dr. Spencer's graph, these projections (and I suspect all serious climatologists' projections) recognise in their error margins or scope for uncertainty the variables which might not be so easily or completely accounted for. Indeed most of the observed temperature bars up to 2010 (a notable exception being 2008's remarkable low) do in fact fall within the range of those projections.

That's in stark contrast to Dr. Spencer's portrayal - perhaps because Dr. Spencer chose for his observational comparison tropical mid-troposphere temperatures, rather than surface or global averages? I really wouldn't know. I simply wanted to point out that posting that graph proved little or nothing, except perhaps to those already keen to dismiss the conclusions of most scientists.

A simple 'no I cant' would have sufficed here :roll:

 

[code1211]

You're not answering my primary question. Why are you, who is not educated or equipped to understand the hard science behind the theory, thoroughly lodged in with the extreme minority?

Einstein said that if a thing is understood, it can be explained to the uniformed.

In the case of Global warming caused by the rise of CO2 emitted from sources traced to the activities of Man, the hurdles that need to be cleared are these:

1. Has the temperature ever been this warm absent the activities of man?
2. Has the temperature ever risen at the rate it is currently rising absent the activities of man?
3. Is there any other more simple explanation that could explain both this temperature increase and the others that occurred absent the activities of man?

In order, the answers to these questions is yes, yes and yes.

It is up to the Die Hards to prove that this natural increase in Temperature that is mirrored by similar increases in the past absent the activities of man is this time caused by the activities of man AND to supply the test that can falsify their hypothesis.

You are free to proceed.

 

[code1211]

Yes I did, and again it would have been a fine point if you knew math.

Which you don't. At least, not enough to matter as far as this discussion is concerned.

Apparently the Climatologists who pursue the empty and pointless discipline of AGW Science also do not understand the math since they have an unblemished record of never having made an accurate prediction of the temperature only 3 decades into the future. This does not dissuade them from making predictions of longer time spans.

A person possessed of cynicism, a critical requirement in the make-up of a scientist, might begin to challenge the credibility of this notion.

Those who do not challenge it are qualified or not by the degree of their blind and blithe acceptance of a thing with no proof.

 

[code1211]

One side (the majority) has conclusions that point to AGW, the other side, the minority, has conclusions to the contrary. You chose the second side in spite of not being able to understand the math. Why?

The actual evidence from the real world is a good indicator of what the actual evidence from the real world is.

One of the dissenters in this little proxy vote you contrive is Mother Nature. She holds the majority share of stocks.

 

[code1211]

According to the conclusions of one side, and not at all the other. None of which you understand.

View attachment 67154675

'nuff said.

 

[code1211]

These "others" you chose to side with are the minority, in a discussion you don't understand because the discussion is in a language you don't speak.

So why did you pick these "others," exactly?

And don't say "it's the conclusions." Both sides have their conclusions.

One side says there is not conclusive evidence and therefore there needs to be more study and perhaps a search for better understanding.

The other side says that the Science is settled and we need to act immediately to avoid global catastrophic consequence.

The data says that the topic is not a closed debate and that there could be various conclusions based on what is actually happening right now and what has happened in the past.

 

[code1211]

He's certainly qualified to express his own views on the matter, on his own pages or in scientific literature. But that does not automatically make his presentation of others' views on his website accurate or reliable. One of the more notable examples of his track record regarding others' views is in the case of evolution where he adopts the fringe position (as he does in climate science) and falsely portrays the scientific majority's (and in this case much more qualified) views as "classical evolutionism, based almost entirely upon faith." Since he's apparently not shy about misrepresenting majority scientific views outside his field, why should we assume that he is any fairer or more objective in his representation of majority scientific views on his own website?

Surely you, who are keener than most to question, smear or mock any source you don't agree with - off the top of my head; Wikipedia, scepticalscience.com, realclimate.com, the IPCC and some 20-plus national academies of sciences - can understand why this should be a cause for concern? And interestingly, since you bring it up, while Spencer personally may never have been asked to perform any service for any oil company, he is one of the nine board members of the Marshall Institute, which had received over $700,000 in funding from that nasty ol' Exxon-Mobil.

Exxon Mobile has an annual tax bill of about 30 billion.

By your logic, the whole EPA is on the take from Exxon Mobile.

 

[code1211]

Sure, as soon as you provide equivalent evidence regarding those you have smeared - off the top of my head Wikipedia, scepticalscience.com, realclimate.com, the IPCC and some 20-plus national academies of sciences :roll:

My post above is an explanation of why I would not consider Dr. Roy Spencer to be an objective reliable source regarding other scientisists' views. As a general rule I don't approve of your frequent attack-the-source approach to debate, because ultimately it'd descend into the farce of neither side accepting anything the other offers and dismissing information simply because they don't like it (as you seemingly did regarding the source you yourself provided for CO2's logarithmic warming effect). But my comments were in response to your post implying Dr. Spencer's credentials or reliability to be excellent and specifically downplaying association with oil companies.

My actual criticism of the graph, which you have not answered beyond posting Spencer's resume, was that "it's extremely dubious that any climate models can be accurately represented by a single thin line as all of those are." Take a look at some IPCC projections for a variety of emissions scenarios, for example. Or this graphic from "a draft of the Fifth Assessment Report" of the IPCC. Note that contrary to Dr. Spencer's graph, these projections (and I suspect all serious climatologists' projections) recognise in their error margins or scope for uncertainty the variables which might not be so easily or completely accounted for. Indeed most of the observed temperature bars up to 2010 (a notable exception being 2008's remarkable low) do in fact fall within the range of those projections.

That's in stark contrast to Dr. Spencer's portrayal - perhaps because Dr. Spencer chose for his observational comparison tropical mid-troposphere temperatures, rather than surface or global averages? I really wouldn't know. I simply wanted to point out that posting that graph proved little or nothing, except perhaps to those already keen to dismiss the conclusions of most scientists.

I am always amused that people post the "predictions" from the IPCC as if they have any meaning whatsoever.

According to the graph, the ACTUAL change in the temperature in the REAL WORLD has been .2 degrees.

The graph you post from the AR4 shows a temperature range into which to fit of 1.2 degrees and this is only 2 years away from present. This is an error range of 600%.

Pardon me if I catch my breath from the gamble they are taking.

I don't have the math skills to calculate what the error range would expand to if they extended this out to 4 or 5 years.

The incompetence of these charlatans is is matched only by the naivety of those that accept this tripe as science.

 

[Mithrae]

I am always amused that people post the "predictions" from the IPCC as if they have any meaning whatsoever.

According to the graph, the ACTUAL change in the temperature in the REAL WORLD has been .2 degrees.

The graph you post from the AR4 shows a temperature range into which to fit of 1.2 degrees and this is only 2 years away from present. This is an error range of 600%.

Pardon me if I catch my breath from the gamble they are taking.

I don't have the math skills to calculate what the error range would expand to if they extended this out to 4 or 5 years.

The incompetence of these charlatans is is matched only by the naivety of those that accept this tripe as science.

The graph's caption clearly says "The light grey area above and below is not part of the model prediction range." The article also explicitly says of all the models that "climate models predicted temperatures should have responded by rising somewhere between about 0.2 and 0.9 degrees C..." How you get a range of 1.2 degrees for any or all of the models from that - let alone AR4 specifically - is truly beyond me. Incompetence indeed.

 

[code1211]

The graph's caption clearly says "The light grey area above and below is not part of the model prediction range." The article also explicitly says of all the models that "climate models predicted temperatures should have responded by rising somewhere between about 0.2 and 0.9 degrees C..." How you get a range of 1.2 degrees for any or all of the models from that - let alone AR4 specifically - is truly beyond me. Incompetence indeed.

Okay, then. The error range is not 600%.

The error range is only 450%.

Almost dead on. Almost two years out. RU Kidding me?

Seriously, I could do better playing blind man's bluff. +.9 degrees in 2 years? What are these guys getting paid?

By the by, According to UAH, we have just completed another month, September 2013, when the same month 2013 anomaly was lower than the 2012 anomaly, not by much, but it was cooler. Another black eye for AGW Science prediction.

One thing about AGW Science, they can really take a punch.

 

[Cardinal]

View attachment 67154675

'nuff said.

That image is too tiny. Link?

Anyway, my main point, which is repeatedly ignored is that you have a group of people on a debate forum who are too uneducated to understand the math behind a very complicated debate, yet have staunchly sided with bloggers, paid shills and an extreme minority of science. That is what I find so bizarre.

 

[Dezaad]

I think that postulating that heat could escape the ocean and heat the atmosphere up 200 degrees is a particularly alarmist and misleading way to spin the physical facts. Such a thing, as Spencer says, isn't just extremely unlikely, it's impossible. It would violate the laws of thermodynamics.

They weren't spinning the facts to try and indicate that this was a serious threat, but the news media tried to claim that they were so that they would have a dramatic and controversial story to report on. So, whether the likelihood is nil or vanishingly small makes little difference.

His point was that the biosphere is absorbing a lot of energy and that is all, period. The news media wants controversy and sometimes they create it in order to get it. People like you lap it up and they sell minutes to advertisers as a consequence.

 

[flogger]

That image is too tiny. Link?

Anyway, my main point, which is repeatedly ignored is that you have a group of people on a debate forum who are too uneducated to understand the math behind a very complicated debate, yet have staunchly sided with bloggers, paid shills and an extreme minority of science. That is what I find so bizarre.

What I find even more bizarre is that the only side regularly presenting published literature in support of their position tend to be the skeptic side. We get appeals to authority from the advocate position every time it gets presented to challenge the hypothesis . As has been illustrated for you earlier 100% of the climate models this hypothesis is entirely reliant on have failed over just 25 years to predict anything and you were also shown the published science explaining why that is. This jarrs with the alleged 97% consensus view suggesting gross distortion because how can that possibly be so in the light of such failures ?

You do not have to be a mathematical genius to enable you to read and understand the abstracts and conclusions of any respective paper (those tend to be maths free summaries) you just have to have the determination to do so. What the politicians are hoping is that you do not

 

[Cardinal]

What I find even more bizarre is that the only side regularly presenting published literature in support of their position tend to be the skeptic side. We get appeals to authority from the advocate position every time it gets presented to challenge the hypothesis . As has been illustrated for you earlier 100% of the climate models this hypothesis is entirely reliant on have failed over just 25 years to predict anything and you were also shown the published science explaining why that is. This jarrs with the alleged 97% consensus view suggesting gross distortion because how can that possibly be so in the light of such failures ?

You do not have to be a mathematical genius to enable you to read and understand the abstracts and conclusions of any respective paper (those tend to be maths free summaries) you just have to have the determination to do so. What the politicians are hoping is that you do not

Yes, just as I lazily appeal to authority when I choose a doctor for health advice instead of my local dry cleaner.

 

[flogger]

Yes, just as I lazily appeal to authority when I choose a doctor for health advice instead of my local dry cleaner.

Thats a worthless analogy. I just prefer verifiable fact over politicized opinion nothing more and I've already illustrated why that is and make no apologies for taking that view

 

[Cardinal]

Thats a worthless analogy.

No, it really isn't. You can call it lazy appeals to authority if you like, but in reality you just choose to go to really crappy, unqualified sources for your information.

By the way, I'll fix your car for you if you want. I saw my my mechanic do it once so it should be fine.

 

[flogger]

No, it really isn't. You can call it lazy appeals to authority if you like, but in reality you just choose to go to really crappy, unqualified sources for your information.

Really which ones would those be then ?

 

[Cardinal]

Really which ones would those be then ?

What? Seriously? All those other posts where I asked which professionals (or nonprofessionals) you'd opt for over which problem wasn't just to practice my awesome typing skills.

 

[flogger]

What? Seriously? All those other posts where I asked which professionals (or nonprofessionals) you'd opt for over which problem wasn't just to practice my awesome typing skills.

So you have no evidence I have actually used any of these so called 'crappy unqualified sources 'then ? It was just a throwaway line that you thought might play well to the gallery so to speak . Fair enough :roll:

 

[AngryOldGuy]

How did that 200 degrees escape the oceans again?
Odd thing is shouldn't another measure have been used like BTU's calories joules or sumthin' ?

 

[flogger]

How did that 200 degrees escape the oceans again?
Odd thing is shouldn't another measure have been used like BTU's calories joules or sumthin' ?

It was an IPCC soundbite specifically for sensationalist media consumption. Expect a whole lot more of them as the predicted 'problem' fails to materialise because they have to justify their continued employment somehow in the public eye :roll:

 

[AngryOldGuy]

IPCC soundbite

Makes them seem rather silly does it not? I'd hope any person with even a basic knowledge of physics would dismiss these nutcases out of hand. If the earth's ecosphere was so precariously balanced it would have toppled into an uninhabitable state eons ago. The really neat thing is, if the planet were to become a roiling cauldron there's not a single thing we meaningless humans could do to stop it.

 

[code1211]

That image is too tiny. Link?

Anyway, my main point, which is repeatedly ignored is that you have a group of people on a debate forum who are too uneducated to understand the math behind a very complicated debate, yet have staunchly sided with bloggers, paid shills and an extreme minority of science. That is what I find so bizarre.

The math is pretty simple. The temperature goes up or the temperature goes down.

The Die Hards of the AGW Science Club have pretty conclusively shown that if they are correct in their notion, the temperate will rise and it will rise at a particular rate.

They are wrong.

All of the complex misconceptions they care to present mathematically are not going to change the fact that they cannot accurately predict what the real world is actually doing.

I cannot accurately describe the exact the process by which a fish will begin to rot. I don't need to be able to describe this to know that a fish rotting in the sun on my back porch stinks. If a scientist proved, using the most elegant formulas that aromatic fish does not stink but I can't breath because of the smell of the rotting fish, it is likely that he has made a mistake in his calculations.



http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate Change/HansenvUAH.png